Digital Signature Feasibility Study

Digital Signature Feasibility Study
Final Report 534
Prepared by:
Arrowhead Solutions, Inc
16841 N. 31st Avenue
Suite 141
Phoenix, AZ 85053
June 2008
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers names that may
appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the
report. The U. S. Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or
manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA- AZ- 08- 534
2. Government Accession
No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
5. Report Date
June 2008
4. Title and Subtitle
Digital Signature Feasibility Study 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Chris Cioffi & Rob Fallows
8. Performing Organization Report No.
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Arrowhead Solutions, Inc
16841 N. 31st Avenue
Suite 141
Phoenix, AZ 85053
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR- PL- 1( 59) 534
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Project Manager: John Semmens
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the advantages and disadvantages of using digital signatures to assist the
Department in conducting business. The Department is evaluating the potential of performing more electronic
transactions ( e. g., electronic bidding, procurement, Motor Vehicle transactions, etc.) Many of the Department’s candidate
transactions require one or more ink signatures before they can be processed. The basic challenge is that without a
means to provide verifiable and binding electronic signatures, many transactions become Internet ineligible and cannot
become part of the Department’s e- service portfolio. E- Government relies on secure communication between two or
more trusting parties. Digital signatures may provide the missing component that would allow certain transactions to be
performed electronically.
A great deal of information was found addressing digital signature technology and a number of case studies were used
by the researchers. In addition, the researchers conducted a review of Arizona and Federal statutes to assess the legal
requirements pertaining to the veracity of digital and electronic signatures. A survey of other states’ transportation
departments was completed to determine what digital signature technologies are being used. 36 states responded to
the survey. Most states have either implemented a form of digital signature technology or are in the process of doing so.
Most have chosen to leverage the capabilities of third- party software providers and not internal development by their
staff. Finally, the researchers leveraged case studies and interviews with a leading digital certificate/ PKI vendor to
establish a basic cost profile for developing an internal solution and leveraging a third- party solution. The three year cost
of a third party solution was significantly less than building a solution internally.
Based on the available sources, the researchers concluded that a well documented, third party electronic approval
workflow application ( e. g., AzDOT’s use of Adobe’s LiveCycle product) or a similar electronic approval workflow engine,
provides the necessary structure to make virtually all internal processes and transactions compliant with Federal and
State digital signature guidelines. It is important to note that a robust electronic approval process does not necessarily
require the use of formal digital signature technology ( e. g., Public/ Private key digital certificates).
17. Key Words
Digital Signatures, electronic signatures, electronic
approval
18. Distribution statement
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
52
22. Price
23. Registrant’s Seal
SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
mg
( or “ t”)
mg megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
temperature
5( F- 32)/ 9
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
º F
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1
Stakeholder Interview Section ................................................................................... 5
Interview Summary ................................................................................................ 5
Stakeholder’s Expectations of Digital Signature Feasibility Study Outcomes...... 6
Candidate Transactions Identified.......................................................................... 7
Potential Benefits of Digital Signature Technology from the
Stakeholder’s Perspective................................................................................ 7
Stakeholder Concerns about Digital Signature Technology .................................. 8
Review of Existing Literature.................................................................................... 9
Documents Reviewed During Feasibility Research............................................... 9
State of Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policy............................. 9
Federal Government – E- Sign Documentation................................................. 11
Independent Research – Vendor White Papers, Case Studies,
and Miscellaneous Research ...................................................................... 12
Review of Previous AzDOT Digital Signature Technology Research............. 14
Digital Signature Definition – What is PKI?........................................................ 14
Digital Signature Implementation Approaches .................................................... 16
Customized Internal Solution............................................................................ 16
Internally Hosted – Packaged Solution............................................................. 16
Externally Hosted Solution ............................................................................... 16
Commonly Cited Benefits of an End- to- End Digital Signature Process ............. 17
Digital Signatures – Part of an End- to- End Document Life Cycle...................... 18
Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges ..................................................... 19
Digital Signature Technology Legal Review........................................................... 21
What is Arizona law regarding the use of digital and electronic signatures? ...... 21
I. State Agencies – A. R. S. § 41- 132 ................................................................. 21
II. Arizona Electronic Transactions Act – A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the
“ AETA”) ........................................................................................................... 22
III. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Arizona ......................................... 23
IV. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Other Jurisdictions ....................... 23
Document Retention Guidelines........................................................................... 24
What are the policies governing the retention of electronic documents?......... 24
Guidelines Established by the NECCC E- Sign Workgroup............................. 25
State of Arizona Records Retention Policy ...................................................... 25
Summary of Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing Policy .............................. 26
Summary of A. R. S. § 41- 1351.......................................................................... 26
General Retention Schedule for State Agencies ............................................... 26
Survey of Other States’ Departments of Transportation ......................................... 27
Survey Objectives................................................................................................. 27
Survey Results and Findings ................................................................................ 27
Survey Conclusion................................................................................................ 31
Advantages/ Disadvantages and Cost/ Benefit Profile .............................................. 33
Section Summary.................................................................................................. 33
Research Limitations ............................................................................................ 33
Legal Findings ...................................................................................................... 33
Survey Results from 32 Other State Department of
Transportation Organizations ......................................................................... 36
Case Study Review: In- House Development Versus Outsourcing
Digital Certificate Technology...................................................................... 36
Cost Considerations .......................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 43
Appendix 1: State DOT Personnel that Responded to the Survey .......................... 44
Appendix 2: Survey Questions ................................................................................ 45
List of Tables
Table 1: AzDOT Personnel Interviewed for Digital Signature Study 5
Table 2: Summary of Interview Results 6
Table 3: Summary of Stakeholder’s Concerns 8
Table 4: Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policies: 9
Table 5: Federal Government E- Sign Documents 11
Table 6: White Papers and Case Studies 12
Table 7: Previous AzDOT Research 14
Table 8: Commonly Cited Benefits of Digital Signatures 17
Table 9: Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges 19
Table 10: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 1 28
Table 11: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 2 29
Table 12: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 3 31
Table 13: High- Level Costs of In- House Development of a PKI Solution 37
Table 14: High- Level Costs of Third- Party PKI Solution 39
Table 15: Advantages to Leveraging a Third- party Solution 40
Table 16: Disadvantages to Leveraging a Third- party Solution 41
Table 17: Advantages of In- House Development 41
Table 18: Disadvantages of In- House Development 42
Glossary of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ABA American Bar Association
AESI Arizona Electronic Signature Infrastructure
AETA Arizona Electronic Transactions Act
ANSI American National Standards Institute
A. R. S. Arizona Revised Statues
ASP Application Service Provider
AzDOT Arizona Department of Transportation
CAD Computer Aided Design
ESI Electronic Signature Infrastructure
FTE Full- Time Equivalent
IT Information Technology
KDOT Kansas Department of Transportation
NECCC National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council
PGP Pretty Good Privacy
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
SLA Service Level Agreement
SSO Single Sign- On
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
UETA Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Executive Summary
In March 2008 the Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT) initiated the Digital
Signature Feasibility study. The purpose of this study was to assess the advantages and
disadvantages of using digital signatures to assist the Department in conducting business.
The Department is evaluating the potential of performing more electronic transactions
( e. g., electronic bidding, procurement, Motor Vehicle transactions, etc.) Many of the
Department’s candidate transactions require one or more ink signatures before they can
be processed. The basic challenge is that without a means to provide verifiable and bind-ing
electronic signage, many transactions become Internet ineligible and cannot become
part of the Department’s e- service portfolio. E- Government relies on secure communica-tion
between two or more trusting parties. Digital signatures may provide the missing
component that would allow certain transactions to be performed electronically. They
may also provide the desired level of security, privacy, and authenticity required for the
Department’s electronic messages. With the volume of e- commerce and business- to-business
transactions increasing, the acceptance of digital signatures may be more a
question of when, rather than if.
The project was divided into four major tasks:
• Interview Department staff whose work processes might be candidates for digital
signatures.
• Review the literature on digital signatures and their legal veracity.
• Survey other state transportation departments to ascertain whether any use digital
signatures.
• Develop advantages/ disadvantages and cost/ benefit profiles for digital signature
usage by the Department.
What Is a Digital Signature and How DoesIt Work?
In the simplest usage of digital signatures, a user will sign an electronic document with
his/ her digital signature and then send the document to another person. The second
person can electronically verify that the digital signature is valid and that the document
has not been modified after it was signed. The second person will use digital keys,
signatures and time stamps to enable “ authentication” of electronic documents and
assurance of the identity of the signature. The tools needed by both people in this process
are provided by a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system and a trusted third- party
certification authority. A PKI system creates and manages digital certificates. It is used
to grant, renew, and revoke digital certificates for end- users. There are a number of
standards for PKI messages; Arizona requires that PKI systems comply with American
National Standards Institute ( ANSI) x. 509 and x. 500 standards. To verify a signature, the
verifier must have access to the signer’s public key and have assurance that it
corresponds to the signer’s private key ( which is always kept private). A trusted third
party “ Certification Authority” provides this service.
1
2
The main components of a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system include: digital
signatures, public- key cryptography, certificate authorities, and enabling services.
Public- key cryptography is the heart of a PKI system. It is a mathematical capability used
to encrypt ( secure) and decrypt ( validate) using public and private keys. Digital
signatures cannot be deployed without having a fully functional PKI system that is
capable of generating and maintaining digital certificates.
Digital and Electronic Signature Legal Review
Arizona law sets forth specific requirements for electronic signatures that are used to
“ sign” documents filed with or by a state agency. A digital signature is a “ type of
electronic signature that transforms a message through the use of an asymmetric
cryptosystem,” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 3)). The Arizona Electronic Transactions Act
( A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq.) further demonstrates the legislature’s concern with the veracity
of electronic signatures in transactions relating to the conduct of business, commercial or
governmental affairs.
State Agencies – A. R. S. § 41- 132
Arizona law provides that an electronic signature “ may be used to sign as writing on a
document that is filed with or by a state agency, board or commission and the electronic
signature has the same force and effect as a written signature,” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( A)). An
electronic signature has to be ( 1) unique to the person using it, ( 2) capable of reliable
verification, and ( 3) linked to a record in a manner so that if the record is changed the
electronic signature is invalidated, ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( B)).
Arizona Electronic Transactions Act – A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the “ AETA”)
Arizona law recognizes that a record or signature in electronic form cannot be denied
legal effect and enforceability solely because the record or signature is in electronic form,
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( A)). Arizona law further recognizes that a contract formed by an
electronic record cannot be denied legal effect and enforceability solely because an
electronic record was used in its formation, ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( B)). Arizona law also
provides that an electronic record satisfies any law that requires a record to be in writing,
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( C)). Finally, Arizona law provides that an electronic signature
satisfies any law that requires a signature, ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( D)). The AETA defines a
secure electronic signature as one that is ( 1) unique to the person using it, ( 2) is capable
of verification, ( 3) is under the sole control of the person using it, and ( 4) is linked to the
electronic record so that if the record is changed the electronic signature is invalidated,
( A. R. S. § 44- 7031).
Retention Guidelines
According to Arizona and Federal guidelines, documents digitally or electronically
signed are generally held to follow the same retention requirements as paper documents.
Retention of digital signature documents is also addressed in the Signature Dynamics
3
Electronic Signing Policy for electronic signature usages created by the Policy Authority
of the Office of the Secretary of State ( April, 2002). The Electronic Signing Policy is
intended for use by Arizona agencies, boards, commissions, and their electronic signing
partners. It was created by the State of Arizona’s Electronic Signature Infrastructure
( AESI) and is managed by Arizona’s Policy Authority.
In this policy document, under section 5.8.2 “ Retention period for Archive” the signing
process information must be retained for the “ legal” life of the most enduring document
signed within the ESI. If that “ legal” life is unknown, then the information must be kept
for at least 30 years. Specific record retention rule schedules for Arizona agencies are
created and periodically revised by the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public
Records. The most recent revision was dated July 3, 2007, and contains specific
guidelines Arizona agencies must follow for retaining documents related to all agency
business functions.
Survey of other States’ Department of Transportation
The researchers completed a survey of other states’ transportation departments to
determine how they are using digital signature technology. The survey started on April
17, 2008, and ended May 2, 2008. The researchers received responses from 36 states for
a 75 percent response rate.
The objectives of the survey were to:
1. Understand use of digital signatures by other states’ transportation departments
and their plans to implement the technology in the future.
2. Determine which methods have been used to implement digital signature
technology. Identify which software vendors were used and overall satisfaction
with those vendors.
3. Understand how well transportation departments have achieved the benefits
associated with their digital signature technology implementations ( expectations,
benefits, implementation challenges).
The use of digital signature technology is gaining traction with other states’
transportation departments. More than half the respondents have already implemented
the technology ( 55.6 percent). Of those that have not, 70.5 percent expect to do so within
the next two to three years. Most transportation departments have chosen to leverage a
third- party vendor for their digital signature implementations over building an internally
hosted solution ( 88.9 percent use third- party software; only 11 percent have built an
internal solution). The majority of states that have implemented digital signature
technology report their programs have met or exceeded their expectations ( 72 percent).
Not a single responding state believed its program wouldn’t eventually meet
expectations. The most commonly cited benefit to implementing digital signature
technology was improved workflows and shorter times to obtain approvals on internal
processes and procurement bids ( named by 50 percent). Improved
security/ authentication was cited as a benefit by 23 percent and 23 percent said their
primary benefit has been a reduction in printing and copying costs.
4
Cost/ Benefit Profile of Digital Signature Technology Deployment at AzDOT
Another important aspect of the feasibility study was whether AzDOT should build a
customized digital signature infrastructure internally or use a third- party solution. The
researchers completed a high- level cost/ benefit profile of the internal solution and one for
a third party. From a cost perspective, the anticipated cost of developing an internal
solution at an enterprise level has a three- year cost of $ 1,091,600 while leveraging a
third- party solution had a three- year cost of $ 558,405.
Summary of Findings
Based on the available sources, the researchers concluded that a well- documented, third-party
electronic approval workflow application ( e. g., Adobe’s LiveCycle or a similar
electronic approval workflow engine) provides the necessary structure to make virtually
all internal processes and transactions compliant with Federal and state electronic and
digital signature guidelines. It is important to note that a robust electronic approval
process does not necessarily require the use of formal digital signature technology ( e. g.,
Public/ Private key digital certificates).
5
Stakeholder Interview Section
The first task of the Digital Signature Feasibility study was to conduct interviews with
key Arizona Department of Transportation stakeholders. The study’s Technical Advisory
Committee ( TAC) provided a list of stakeholders who have been involved in previous
digital signature research. All of the stakeholders interviewed were knowledgeable about
the technology and were well acquainted with the history of digital signature research at
AzDOT.
Table 1 – Summary of AzDOT Personnel Interviewed for the Study
Thomas Branham
Sr. Manager
Account management for mainframe and distributed
technologies. Responsible for security, firewall, intrusion, and
anti- virus.
Giuly Caceres
Sr. Project Manager
Project Manager in the Statewide Project Management Section.
Rich Nacinovich
Manager
Server Team Leader responsible for application support,
storage, backups, Exchange, and technical uplifts.
Daryl Odom
Information Specialist
IV
Supports infrastructure for the Engineering Technology Group.
Responsible for archiving data, application support ( CAD
Apps), and researching new capabilities. Currently working on
a digital signature proof- of- concept test.
Jamie Rybarczyk
Information
Technology Specialist
Technical support for firewalls, security, and digital driver’s
license support.
Suzan Tasvibi- Tanha
Strategic Business
Services Manager
Responsible for strategic technology planning, program
management, program office functions, managing contractors,
and liaison with consulting firms. Monitors legislation and
supports many AzDOT special projects.
Interview Summary
The interviews provided background on the history of digital signature initiatives at
AzDOT. In addition, they provided an opportunity for stakeholders to express input on
how the technology would be best placed in the organization.
6
The researchers used a standardized interview guide to collect the following information:
Table 2 – Summary of Interview Results
Interview Objective Result
Understand the background of
digital signature work at AzDOT
The interviews oriented the researchers with several
partially completed studies. Research on digital
signatures at AzDOT dates back to 2002 and
includes an actual technology pilot in 2004 that
didn’t move forward.
Collect previous documentation The researchers were provided with documentation
from the previous work.
Determine what the stakeholders
are most interested in seeing in the
feasibility study.
Results found on page 15
Understand the high- level cost of
developing an in- house solution
and determine if any cost analysis
is available.
Between 2002 and 2004, AzDOT staff worked on a
Project Investment Justification document that
contained helpful “ cost” information. This
information is considered further in the study.
Identify transactions/ processes that
are candidates for digital
signatures
Results found on page 16
Understand the stakeholders’
perspective on benefits / concerns
of deploying digital signature
technology
Results found on pages 17- 18
Stakeholder’s Expectations of Digital Signature Feasibility Study
Outcomes
In addition to the deliverables stated in the feasibility study statement of work, each
stakeholder was asked what were the most important items he would need to see in the
final report. The following expectations were expressed by these stakeholders:
1. Recommendations for “ building” versus “ buying” a digital signature solution.
2. A summary of other states’ efforts relative to digital signatures and how AzDOT
compares.
3. A perspective of the lessons learned by the other states.
4. A summary of Arizona state government’s efforts relative to digital signatures
and how AzDOT compares.
5. Document the legal veracity of digital signatures and retention requirements.
6. Clearer direction on the path AzDOT should be taking with digital signature
technology.
7
Candidate Transactions Identified
Each stakeholder was asked to identify potential transactions that might be candidates for
digital signature technology. Nearly all stakeholders mentioned the first three transactions
listed below. Some have only internal impacts, though a few that also have external
impacts.
Candidate transactions: Impact:
1. Engineering documents / Plan drawings Internal / External Vendors
2. AzDOT employee system access requests Internal impact only
3. Employee timesheets Internal impact only
4. Interaction with law enforcement ( DMV) Internal and external impact
5. Project files Internal impact only
6. Training requests Internal impact only
7. Motor vehicle registrations customers Internal and external
Potential Benefits of Digital Signature Technology from the
Stakeholder’s Perspective
The stakeholders interviewed said they supported the idea of implementing some form of
digital signature technology. A number of potential benefits were mentioned; however,
these benefits have not been quantified or proven. The engineering team articulated a
strong potential business case and is quantifying the possible savings. At this point, based
on these interviewee comments, the possible, but as yet unproven, benefits include the
following:
• Process flow improvements for documents requiring multiple “ approvals”
• Speeding of the approval process
• Reduced costs
• Data storage improvements
• Improved disaster recovery over paper archiving
• Improved retrieval process
• Alignment with Arizona and Federal E- Sign and electronic signature directives
• Improved readiness for new legislation
The business case for digital signature technology for Engineering:
The most compelling business case was made by the Engineering team. Although it has
not quantified the benefits yet, it is in the process of putting the analysis together. The
primary benefits mentioned were:
• Reduction in printing and paper costs associated with designs/ drawings for large-scale
projects. Because the Engineering Technology Group uses highly specialized,
large- sheet printers, the cost savings could be substantial,
• Improved data storage and retrieval processing,
• Reduction in legal risks associated with misplacing signed documents in paper
archives,
• Reduced cost through more efficient electronic workflow for plan drawing
processing.
8
Stakeholder Concerns about Digital Signature Technology
Table 3 – Summary of Stakeholders’ Concerns
Concerns Commentary
Solution must be end- to- end The stakeholders understand that implementing digital
signatures means much more than just the technology
behind digital certificates. The solution must have a
complete and well- documented workflow and robust
change management/ training process.
Avoid implementing in a silo The stakeholders recognized the changes required to
successfully implement digital signatures go well beyond
the direct control and purview of IT.
Impact of pending legislation New legislation was enacted by the state legislature that
will mandate electronic processing of transactions such as
vehicle registration. The stakeholders are very concerned
about the readiness for this change and the aggressive
dates requireded in the legislation.
9
Review of Existing Literature
The second task of the Arizona Department of Transportation Digital Signature
Feasibility Study required the researchers to review existing literature on the topic of
digital signatures. The review included documentation from many different sources:
• Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and policy documents,
• Federal statutes, policies, and white papers,
• Independent research compiled from documented case studies, vendor products,
and other sources,
• Existing SPR- 534 project archives.
The information from these sources was used to create this document.
Documents Reviewed During Feasibility Research
State of Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policy
Table 4 – Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policies
Document Summary
A. R. S. 41- 132 – Electronic and digital
signatures: exemptions; definitions
Provides that electronic signatures have the same
force as a written signature.
A. R. S. 41- 1351 – Determination of
Value; Disposition
Assigns responsibility for setting document
retention rules to the Arizona State Library,
Archives, and Public Records.
A. R. S. 44- 7001 – Arizona Electronic
Transactions Act
Recognizes that a record or signature in electronic
form cannot be denied legal effect and
enforceability solely because the record or
signature is in electronic form
A. R. S. 44- 7012 – Electronic records
retention; originals
If the law requires that a record be retained, the
requirement is satisfied by retaining an electronic
record of the information in the record.
A. R. S. 41- 121 Duties of the Secretary of
State
Provides authority to the Secretary of State to
establish policies and procedures for the use of
electronic and digital signatures by all state
agencies, boards, and commissions.
Session Laws, Forty- eighth Legislature,
Second Regular Session, 2008, Chapter
177: Vehicle title; registration;
electronic signatures
Legislation passed in 2008 relating to electronic
vehicle title and registration
Arizona Administrative Codes: Chapter
12. Office of the Secretary of State,
Article 5. Electronic Signatures
Establishes specific requirements for and
definitions of electronic signature technology and
the role the Secretary of State’s office has for
approving all technologies relating to electronic
signatures.
10
Document Summary
Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing
Policy for electronic signature use.
State of Arizona, Policy Authority,
Office of the Secretary of State.
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
April 2002
Overview of Electronic Signing Policy intended
for use by State of Arizona agencies, boards, and
commissions and their electronic signing
partners. Policy outlines business process scope,
technical requirements, technical security
controls, and establishes levels of trust.
Policy Authority Procedure for the
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
September, 1999
The Policy Authority is responsible for defining
and managing the Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI). The AESI consists of all
of the State of Arizona’s collections of electronic
signing mechanisms and the entities and tools that
enable the valid use of these forms of signatures.
Policy Authority Procedures for the
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
April 25, 2002
Policy update that provides requirements for PKI,
PGP, and other elements of Signature Dynamics
Electronic Signing Policy.
Arizona State Library, Archives, and
Public Records
General Records Retention Schedule for
All State Agencies – Schedule Number
000- 07- 41
July 3, 2007
Pursuant to ARS 41- 1351, document contains
both the minimum and maximum time records
may be kept by Arizona agencies.
Records Retention and Disposition for
Arizona State Agencies
Arizona State Library, Archives, and
Public Records Management Division;
March, 2002
Discusses the life cycle of records and outlines
retention rules for all different types of state
transactions and documents.
11
Federal Government – E- Sign Documentation
Table 5: Federal Government E- Sign Documents
Document Summary
NECCC E- Sign – An introduction to E-Sign
Interoperability Workgroup and
State Electronic Records and Signatures
Reciprocity and Inter- operability Issues.
December 2001
This work group established guidelines used by
the Federal and state governments to define the
essential requirements for a formally formed
electronic record and signature. Established rules
that helped guarantee that a signed document has
legal effect, both for sender and receiver, within
each state and beyond its borders.
Framework for Electronic Signature
Reciprocity ( part of E- Sign)
E- Sign Interoperability Work Group –
White Paper
December 2001
Provides objective criteria for determining levels
of trust in electronic signatures and e- records.
Record Retention Analysis Under E-Sign
National Electronic Commerce
Coordinating Council – White Paper
December, 2001
E- Sign established on June 30, 2000, when
President Clinton signed the Electronic Signa-tures
in Global and National Commerce Act.
This white paper allows state regulatory agencies
to set performance standards for electronic
records that law, rules, or regulations require
private entities to retain. It was written to explain
E- Sign’s impact on the authority of states to
require that private parties retain written records
of certain transactions.
Electronic Records Management
Guidelines for State Governments. ( Part
of E- Sign)
Ensuring the Security, Authenticity,
Integrity, and Accessibility of Electronic
Records. National Electronic Commerce
Coordinating Council – White Paper
December 2001
Established practical guidelines to help agencies
develop effective electronic records management
procedures. The guidelines provide a general
direction on how state government agencies can
ensure the authenticity, integrity, security, and
accessibility of electronic records.
Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing
Policy for electronic signature use. ( Part
of E- Sign)
State of Arizona, Policy Authority,
Office of the Secretary of State.
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
April 2002
Overview of Electronic Signing Policy intended
for use by State of Arizona agencies, boards, and
commissions and their electronic signing
partners. Policy outlines specifics including
business process scope, technical requirements,
technical security controls; and establishes levels
of trust.
12
Document Summary
Impact of Electronic Signatures on
Security Practices for Electronic
Documents ( Part of E- Sign)
A National Electronic Commerce
Coordinating Council White Paper;
December 2001
Discusses the challenges of maintaining public
records integrity under E- Sign and UETA. It
introduces a document classification scheme, a
best practice state governments can adopt, and
helps them face the security challenges of E- Sign.
Independent Research – Vendor White Papers, Case Studies, and
Miscellaneous Research
Table 6: White Papers and Case Studies
Document Summary
VeriSign Adobe Certified Document
Services –
Enterprise signing – enterprise true
credentials Adobe Acrobat from
VeriSign product materials
No date included
Overview of VeriSign document services and
digital signature solutions/ tools.
Electronic Document Security: A Guide
to Certified Digital Signatures
VeriSign; White Paper
No date included
Included an overview of digital signature
technology ( including PKI), legal issues, Adobe
products, and several case studies ( Penn State
Univ., Orexigen Theraputics, Inc).
4 Point Solutions Product Overview
No date included
Overview of 4 Point Consulting offerings with
Adobe. This consulting company is being used
by the IDE group for their current Digital
Signature Pilot.
“ KDOT Shifts Into High Gear”
Silanis Technologies
No date included
Case study of the Kansas DOT adoption of
electronic forms, workflow, document
management, and electronic signatures
“ Kentucky’s Department of Natural
Resources”
Silanis Technologies
No date included
The Department’s move towards a paperless
environment. Completing the circle of
information for real- time, status update on mining
projects.
ARX – Algorithmic Research
White Paper on the CoSign Digital
Signature Technology solution
No date included
Overview of business benefits, features, legal
compliance, and technical requirements of digital
signatures. Discusses the use of Portable
Document Format ( PDF) and Acrobat.
13
Document Summary
American Bar Association – Digital
Signature Guidelines Tutorial
No Date Included
An overview published by the ABA on digital
signature technology, the law, and the challenges
associated with implementing this technology.
“ Digital Signature Guidelines”
American Bar Association
August 1, 1996
An early set of guidelines and the law covering
the use of digital signature technology.
Oregon Department of Transportation –
Digital Signatures for Engineering
Documents
June 25, 2007
Outlines issues relating to the utilization of digital
signatures on engineering related documents with
the Oregon Department of Transportation.
“ Public Key Infrastructure Q& A”
Gartner Group Report
November 13, 2002
Public key infrastructure security has failed to
achieve widespread adoption, mostly because
enterprises rarely need all of its benefits.
“ Time’s Running Out to Prove the
Value of Government PKI”
Gartner Group Report
October 27, 2004
Discusses the difficulties many Federal and state
agencies have encountered when attempting to
implement PKI technology.
“ Apply the Lessons of Public- Key
Infrastructure ( PKI) to Protecting
Customer Information”
Gartner Group Report
March 25, 2005
The basic concepts underlying PKI are applicable
to most challenges encountered in protecting
customer information.
“ Management Update: Apply the
Lessons of Public- Key Infrastructure to
Protecting Customer Information”
Gartner Group Report
April 6, 2005
How PKI concepts can be applied to protect
customer information.
14
Review of Previous AzDOT Digital Signature Technology Research
Table 7: Previous AzDOT Research
Document Summary
Project Investment Justification – SPR-
534 Digital Signatures
Written by: David Moy, ITG, AzDOT
Multiple versions: 11/ 30/ 2004,
3/ 272002
Developed by AzDOT ITG to justify a pilot
implementation of PKI technology.
AzDOT Information Technology Group
– SPR 534: Digital Signature
Feasibility Study
May 18, 2004
A partial report summarizing the results of a
previous feasibility study effort in 2004.
AzDOT Uses for Digital Signatures –
Phase 1: Pre- pilot Report 534
March, 2002
Report outlines the impact that digital signatures
and electronic forms can have on AzDOT.
Emphasizes the importance placed on AzDOT
becoming its own Certificate Authority and
managing the entire system internally.
Digital Signature Definition – What is PKI?
Two documents that are included in the project archives for SPR 534 – Digital Signatures
Project provide an excellent definition and overview of Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI):
• Oregon Department of Transportation. Digital Signatures for Engineering
Documents. June 2007.
• Arizona Department of Transportation. SPR 534: Digital Signatures – Feasibility
Study. May 2004.
A summary ( with edits) of the definitions these documents provide is as follows:
Traditional hand written, or “ wet,” signatures on physical documents worked well during
the era of hand written/ drawn documents. A wet signature’s purpose is not to prove
identity, but rather to show agreement or consent. We” signatures are not always binding
unless witnessed. The tasks for creating drawings and documents have been moved to
computers to increase productivity and accuracy in nearly all facets of business within
AzDOT. Electronic documents are routinely transmitted in bidding processes and
amongst internal units. Management, storage, and retrieval of these documents with wet
signatures have become increasingly problematic. Signed documents that are physically
stored require a great deal of space and are often difficult to track and recall. Documents
that are signed and scanned and then stored again electronically lose the original
document electronic format; scanning is also a time consuming process. Digital
Signatures can be used to speed workflow, support repudiation processes and can
significantly help support sound document management practices.
15
In the simplest usage of digital signatures, a user will sign an electronic document with
his/ her digital signature and then send the document to another person. The second per-son
can electronically verify that the digital signature is valid and that the document has
not been modified after it was signed. The second person will use digital keys, signatures,
and time stamps to enable “ authentication” of electronic documents and assurance of the
identity of the signature. The tools needed by both people in this process are provided by
a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system and a trusted third- party certification authority.
• A PKI system creates and manages digital certificates. It is used to grant, renew, and
revoke digital certificates for end- users.
• A PKI system can be used to manage both public and private keys.
• There are a number of standards for PKI messages; Arizona requires that PKI
systems comply with ANSI x. 509 and x. 500 standards.
• In order to verify a signature, the verifier must have access to the signer’s public key
and have assurance that it corresponds to the signer’s private key ( which is always
kept private). A trusted third party Certification Authority provides this service.
The main components of a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system include: digital
signatures, public- key cryptography, certificate authorities, and enabling services.
Public- key cryptography is the heart of a PKI system. It is a mathematical capability used
to encrypt ( secure) and decrypt ( validate) using public and private keys. Digital
Signatures are specially designed with public- key cryptology so that they can provide:
1. Authentication: the ability to verify the identity of a user or an organization.
2. Integrity: protection against unauthorized modification or substitution of
information in a document, transaction or other type of message.
3. Privacy: security against eavesdropping or interception of private data.
4. Non- repudiation: absolute certainty that a specific digital certificate was used to
sign a document, transaction or other type of message.
Using the capabilities of digital certificates, PKI systems can be used in many facets of
electronic services, including ( but not limited to):
1. Digital Certificates that can be used to electronically sign or authorize contracts,
purchase orders, engineering documents, documents, and critical e- mail.
2. Logon and Single Sign- on ( SSO) that enable users to maintain a user id and
password which grants them a right to use system resources and access data.
3. Electronic Commerce transactions that prove to the seller and the bank that the
purchaser is who he says he is to assure a proper funding authorization.
16
Digital Signatures cannot be deployed without a having a fully functional PKI System
that is capable of generating and maintaining digital certificates. With this technology in
place, AzDOT would be able to:
1. Electronically authenticate the identity of internal staff and external service
providers or consumers,
2. Protect the integrity of sensitive and confidential data,
3. Realize benefits of improved workflow ( less paper handling, improved
responsiveness, reduced research time),
4. Enforce non- repudiation issues that occur as a result of e- business transactions.
Digital Signature Implementation Approaches
There are three general approaches that AzDOT has explored and considered to
implement digital signature capabilities. These general solutions are: 1) a customized
internal solution, 2) an internally hosted packaged solution, and 3) an externally hosted
( or Application Service Provider- ASP) solution.
Customized Internal Solution
Florida created an internally customized PKI System and Certificate Authority. This has
been ruled out as an option for AzDOT due to the degree of scientific complexity, the staff
resources that would be required, probable delays and integration with other queued pro-jects,
and the need to form a management department to support signature authentication.
Internally Hosted – Packaged Solution
In this approach, AzDOT would select a vendor- packaged PKI System and implement it
on servers within the state government’s computing infrastructure. Over a period of time,
and as need arises, existing applications would be modified to use the PKI System
services. A third- party vendor would be selected to act as a “ trusted certificate authority”
to validate signatures.
This solution is viewed as being the best because it has the benefit of leveraging existing
market functionality and expertise with minimal impact to AzDOT resources and
projects. Integration could begin with the highest priority needs as soon as the hardware
and software were in place and the support staff could be trained. AzDOT would be
positioned to manage ongoing maintenance releases directly and could coordinate with
other applications maintenance and release opportunity windows.
Externally Hosted Solution
Application Service Providers, ( ASPs) offer software hosted on their hardware. Clients,
in this case AzDOT, would link to the ASP over telecommunications circuits to perform
PKI system management functions. Although an ASP solution would create an
opportunity to immediately begin issuing digital certificates, the solution is not viewed as
being plausible.
17
Hosting confidential data such as public and private keys offsite is a significant security
risk. Creating extensive dependence on an outside provider is viewed as being prob-lematic
to manage as the services would be required to be placed for bid periodically,
thus potentially creating unnecessary work to train, convert, and transition staff as well as
systems testing and integration activities to use other providers. Finally, this approach
would make ongoing integration with internal systems more difficult and expensive.
Commonly Cited Benefits of an End- to- End Digital Signature Process
Table 8: Commonly Cited Benefits of Digital Signatures
Benefit Description
Reduction in printing costs Documents available to sign electronically and
easily re- distributed without need to reprint.
Especially important for the AzDOT Engineering
group where specialty paper/ printing is used. In
addition, there are high volumes of printing during
the bid process.
Reduction in administrative costs Reduction in costs associated with copying, filing,
and faxing documents. Reduction in time spent
tracking down approvals.
Elimination of scanning expenses Many companies/ agencies use internal staff and/ or
third- party outsourcing to convert paper documents
into scanned images.
Streamlined processes by
automating routing of approvals
Significant cost reduction and improved
turnaround times for approvals. Case studies
showed average reduction of 60 percent- 80 percent
in the turnaround time required to get documents
approved, when completed electronically versus by
mail.
Improved disaster recovery Unlike paper archives, if set up properly, electronic
documents can easily be accounted for in disaster
recovery plans.
Improved security For even the most secure transactions ( Federal
government top secret ratings) PKI technology has
been proven to be more secure than any previous
technology.
Expand access to valid users;
restrict access for users that do not
have authority
Because information is available electronically and
users can be authenticated using digital signature
technology, simpler and more secure access can be
granted.
Repudiation “ Wet” signatures are not reputable unless
witnessed. Digital signatures are completely
binding.
18
Digital Signatures – Part of an End­to­End
Document Life Cycle
Much has been written about the underlying technology involved in digital signatures.
Often, too much emphasis is placed on the technology itself and not enough on how
digital signatures fit within the larger end- to- end view of the document life cycle. Even
the partially implemented ITG PKI solution focused primarily on the digital certificate
technology with minor, if any, focus on how the technology should be integrated into an
end- to- end workflow.
The following processes must be considered within the scope of an end- to- end digital
signature process:
1. Electronic Forms Library: Creating a central place where customers can access
online forms optimized by an end- to- end solution. Usually developed as part of
an intranet portal used by the department.
2. Workflow Management / Electronic Approvals: Implementing a workflow tool to
manage electronic approval flows. This form of workflow tool may or may not
include PKI technology. Most implementations do not according to the cases we
reviewed.
3. Document Imaging: The process of converting paper forms for electronic storage
is an important aspect of any solution.
4. Document Management: How documents are stored and managed once approve-ed.
This includes the establishment of retention rules for each document type.
5. Document Archiving and Retrieval: The process used to quickly access
documents. Must have robust search capabilities along with a proper level of
security to ensure that only authorized users can access the archived documents.
19
Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges
Table 9: Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges
Limited Participation Need to include all affected departments early in the
project including:
• IT ( Infrastructure & application )
• Business Process Owners: those individuals
knowledgeable about the process being automated
• Security / Risk Management
• Management
• Legal
• Training
Poor Deployment Planning Not communicating with affected groups, not
implementing the necessary training, and not gaining
customer input on high- value processes to automate.
Lack of post- implementation support.
Lack of Formal Training /
Change Management
Planning
Many implementations suffer due to lack of a thorough
training plan.
Requirements Not Well
Documented
Not getting the end- to- end process chain ready. Each
process and electronic document needs to be thoroughly
analyzed.
Not Recognizing Long- Term
Rollout Approach
Moving to a digital signature process is a long- term
transformation, often requiring years to fully realize the
benefits. Even in the most well- documented case study,
that of the Kansas DOT, it has taken 5+ years to
implement digital signatures, with investments likely in
the millions of dollars.
High Costs / Complicated
Integration
Cost of implementing digital signatures goes beyond the
initial investment in technology infrastructure and digital
signature software technology. It involves investments
in creating form libraries, improving imaging
capabilities, developing new document management
solutions, etc.
Poor User Adoption Rates Customers may not understand the new processes, or
were not consulted about what transactions/ processes
should be automated to benefit them the most. It is also
very important that the solution developers balance
security with ease of use. Too much security at the
expense of ease of use leads to poor adoption rates.
Management Pitfalls Lack of executive sponsorship necessary to set the pro-ject
as multi- year and high priority. Not securing buy- in
from business, no or late customer involvement ( this
cannot be an “ IT only” project), and not setting proper
expectations about the long- term nature of this project.
20
21
Prior to implementing a digital signature technology solution, it is important to
understand the legal consequences of using this method of conducting business. The
following section looks at several aspects of the digital signature process:
1. What is Arizona law regarding the use of electronic/ digital signatures?
2. What is the veracity of electronic signatures?
3. What are the specific retention requirements for electronic documents?
What is Arizona law regarding the use of digital and electronic
signatures?
Brief Answer
Arizona law sets forth specific requirements for electronic signatures that are used to
“ sign” documents filed with or by a state agency. Arizona law also sets forth very
specific requirements for documents that are “ signed” by a digital signature, a type of
electronic signature. Second, the Arizona Electronic Transactions Act further
demonstrates the concern of the legislature with the veracity of electronic signatures in
transactions relating to the conduct of business, commercial or governmental affairs.
Finally, there has been only one challenge to electronic signatures in Arizona, and it was
unsuccessful.
Discussion
I. State Agencies – A. R. S. § 41- 132
Arizona law provides that an electronic signature “ may be used to sign as writing on a
document that is filed with or by a state agency, board, or commission, and the electronic
signature has the same force and effect as a written signature” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( A)).
An electronic signature is “ an electronic or digital method of identification that is
executed or adopted by a person with the intent to be bound by or to authenticate a
record” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 4)).
An electronic signature has to be ( 1) unique to the person using it, ( 2) capable of reliable
verification, and ( 3) linked to a record in a manner so that if the record is changed the
electronic signature is invalidated ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( B)).
A document that has an electronic signature that is a digital signature has to comply with
additional specific requirements.
A digital signature is a “ type of electronic signature that transforms a message through
the use of an asymmetric cryptosystem” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 3)).
Digital Signature Technology Legal Review
22
An asymmetric cryptosystem is defined as “ an algorithm or series of algorithms that
provide a secure key pair for a digital signature” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 1)).
The requirements of a document containing a digital signature are:
( a) The document must contain a computer- based certificate that
( 1) identifies the issuing entity and the subscriber ( the subscriber lawfully holds
the private key that corresponds to the public key listed in the certificate and
accepts the certificate),
( 2) contains the subscriber’s public key, and
( 3) is digitally signed by the issuing entity.
( i) An issuing entity is “ a person who creates and issues a certificate and
notifies the subscriber listed in the certificate of the contents of the
certificate” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E)( 5)).
( b) The document must contain a key pair used for verifying a digital signature that
has a unique property so that the public key can verify the digital signature that the
private key creates.
( i) A key pair is “ a private key and its corresponding public key in an asymmetric
cryptosystem.” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E)( 6)).
( c) The document must be capable of verification by the person having the initial
message and the signer’s public key, meaning that
( 1) the person can accurately determine whether the transformation of the
message was created by using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s
key and
( 2) the person can accurately determine whether the initial message has been
altered since the transformation was made.
( i) Transform means to “ subject data in a message to a mathematical change
by electronic means” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E)( 12)).
The legislative history of A. R. S. § 41- 132 shows that the statute was intended to define
the necessary terms regarding electronic signatures to allow the Arizona Secretary of
State to adopt rules regarding electronic signatures.
II. Arizona Electronic Transactions Act – A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the
“ AETA”)
Arizona law recognizes that a record or signature in electronic form cannot be denied
legal effect and enforceability solely because the record or signature is in electronic form
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( A)). Arizona law further recognizes that a contract formed by an
electronic record cannot be denied legal effect and enforceability solely because an
electronic record was used in its formation ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( B)). Arizona law also
provides that an electronic record satisfies any law that requires a record to be in writing
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( C)). Finally, Arizona law provides that an electronic signature
satisfies any law that requires a signature ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( D)).
23
The AETA defines a secure electronic signature as one that is ( 1) unique to the person
using it, ( 2) is capable of verification, ( 3) is under the sole control of the person using it,
and ( 4) is linked to the electronic record so that, if the record is changed, the electronic
signature is invalidated ( A. R. S. § 44- 7031).
The legislative history of the AETA shows that it is modeled after the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act ( UETA) and was meant to address concerns regarding the incompatible
laws between states and the use of electronic signatures by private parties in business
transactions. The AETA applies to parties that elect to conduct electronic transactions or
to form electronic contracts using electronic signatures.
III. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Arizona
Case law on challenges to the veracity of electronic signatures in Arizona is virtually
non- existent. One recent case has upheld the veracity of electronic signatures in the
judicial arena. In that case, plaintiffs challenged the validity of two electronic signatures
by the superior court judge on two separate judgments. Haywood Sec., Inc. v. Ehrlich,
214 Ariz. 114, 115, ¶ 3, 149 P. 3d 738, 739 ( 2007). Plaintiffs argued that the electronic
signatures on the judgments did not satisfy the “ signed” requirement of Rule 58( a),
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that all judgments be in writing and
signed by the judge. Id. at ¶ 2. The Arizona Supreme Court, sitting en banc, held that
the judge’s electronic signature on the judgments “ clearly demonstrated his intent to
authenticate both documents, and [ he] therefore ‘ signed’ them for purposes of Rule
58( a).” Id. at 117, ¶ 15, 149 P. 3d at 741. The Court went on to state that its holding
comports with the AETA’s “ general policy of recognizing and facilitating transactions
using electronic signatures.” Id. at 117, n. 2, 149 P. 3d at 741.
There have been no legal challenges to A. R. S. § 41- 132.
IV. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Other Jurisdictions
It appears that many states have also adopted the UETA or some version of the UETA.
There is limited case law in other jurisdictions discussing the veracity of electronic
signatures.
Electronic signatures have been held to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. In one case, the
parties had entered into an agreement regarding the sale of goods through a series of e-mails.
Int’l Casings Group, Inc. v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 2d 863,
865 ( W. D. Mo. 2005). The seller, in an attempt to back out of the contract, argued that
the Statute of Frauds prevented enforcement of the contract for the sale of goods because
the contract was not in writing and was not signed. Id. at 872. The United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri held, citing to Missouri law that had adopted
the UETA, that even though the parties’ signatures were electronic, it satisfied the Statute
of Frauds as long as there was an intention to authenticate the documents. Id. at 873.
The Court noted that its finding that an electronic signature in an email satisfied the
Statute of Frauds is supported by developing case law. Id. at 874.
24
Just because an electronic signature has the same effect by law as a hand- written
signature does not preclude a person from arguing that he did not authorize the electronic
signature. In one case, the appellant argued that the bankruptcy court incorrectly
disregarded a document filed by the appellee with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that bore an electronic signature. Piranha, Inc. v. Piranha, Inc., 297 B. R.
78, 81 ( N. D. Tex. 2003) The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas held that Delaware law, that had adopted the UETA, did not advocate the
enforcement of electronic signatures that were neither executed, adopted, nor authorized.
Id. at 82. Citing a section of the UETA that provides that an “ electronic signature is
attributable to a person if it was the act of the person,” the Court held that UETA does not
preclude a person from contesting that he executed, adopted, or authorized an electronic
signature that is purportedly his.
Document Retention Guidelines
What are the policies governing the retention of electronic
documents?
The legality of an electronically signed record requires that it “ remains accessible to all
persons who are entitled to access by statue, regulation, or rule of law, for the period
required by such statute, regulation, or rule of law, in a form that is capable of being
accurately reproduced for later reference, whether by transmission, printing or
otherwise.” 1
According to State and Federal guidelines, documents digitally or electronically signed
are generally held to follow the same retention requirements as paper documents.
“ Government’s record retention, whether paper or electronic, is intended to give
evidence of some action. E- sign policy establishes that record retention
requirements of electronic records created by electronic signatures are not different
than retention requirements for paper records.” 2
However, Section 101 ( d) ( 1) of the E- Sign Act further qualifies this general rule. It
provides that where a statute, regulation, or rule of law requires that a contract or record
in a transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce be retained, an electronic
record only meets the statutory requirement if:
1. The record is accurate,
2. The record is accessible in a form that can be accurately reproduced; and
3. The record is accessible to all persons entitled to review the record.
1 Federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Section 101. ( d)( 1)( B) ( E- Sign- Interstate and
international commerce)
2 National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council ( NECCC) “ Impact of Electronic Signatures on Security
Practices for Electronic Documents.” ( December, 2001)
25
Guidelines Established by the NECCC E- Sign Workgroup
Just as with paper records, the e- records a government agency produces or receives are
not all of equal importance or value. Although all government records should be
maintained properly, the effort and resources a state agency expends to manage and
maintain records, including e- records, should be related to the records’ value to the
agency and the citizens it services. The concept of risk management may be useful. Risk
management requires an analysis of risks relative to potential benefits, consideration of
alternative measures to address risks, and implementation of the measures that best
address the risk based on this analysis. In applying risk management to e- records, the
following questions should be asked:
1. What would the impact on agency operations be if the records were lost or
otherwise unavailable?
2. Would the agency or others suffer a financial loss if the records were unavailable?
3. What is the likelihood that the records would be subject to or needed for a legal
action?
4. Would the inability to produce the records in a form admissible in court have a
critical impact on the outcome of a case?
5. Are the records required for an extended period of time?
6. Do the records have significant cultural or historical value?
Interestingly, the guidelines published by the NECCC focus more on the importance of
having reliable and accurate processes and procedures used to create, capture, and
maintain e- records than on the technology used. Having well established procedures is
critical to demonstrating their authenticity, integrity, and security. These factors are
much more important than the format or medium of e- records or the specific technology
used to create and maintain them. Government agencies should identify, specify, and
document these processes and procedures if they expect their e- records to be accepted in
legal and other proceedings.
State of Arizona Records Retention Policy
In Arizona, electronic records retention rules are established in A. R. S. § 44- 7012 and
A. R. S. § 41- 1351.
Summary of A. R. S. § 44- 7012
A. R. S. 44- 7012 establishes that:
A. If a law requires that a record be retained, the requirement is satisfied by retaining an
electronic record of the information in the record that:
1. Accurately reflects the information prescribed in the record after the record was
first generated in its final form as an electronic record or otherwise.
2. Remains accessible for later reference.
B. Subsection A does not apply to any information whose sole purpose is to enable the
record to be sent, communicated or received.
26
C. A person may satisfy subsection A by using the services of another person to satisfy
subsection A.
D. If a law requires a record to be presented or retained in its original form, or provides
consequences if the record is not presented or retained in its original form, that law is
satisfied by an electronic record retained according to subsection A.
E. A record retained as an electronic record pursuant to subsection A satisfies a law that
requires a person to retain a record for evidentiary, audit or like purposes, unless a
law that is enacted after the effective date of this chapter prohibits the use of an
electronic record for the specified purpose.
F. This section does not prohibit a governmental agency from adopting additional
requirements for the retention of a record that is subject to that agency's jurisdiction.
Summary of Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing Policy
Retention of digital signature documents is also addressed in the Signature Dynamics
Electronic Signing Policy for electronic signature usages created by the Policy Authority
of the Office of the Secretary of State ( April, 2002). The Electronic Signing Policy is
intended for use by State of Arizona agencies, boards, commissions, and their electronic
signing partners. It was created by the State of Arizona’s Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI) and is managed by Arizona’s Policy Authority.
In this policy document, under section 5.8.2 “ Retention period for Archive,” the signing
process information must be retained for the “ legal” life of the most enduring document
signed within the ESI. If that “ legal” life is unknown, then it must be kept for at least 30
years. Any signed documents may also have public records retention requirements that
must also be met.
Summary of A. R. S. § 41- 1351
A. R. S. 41- 1351 assigns responsibility for document retention rules to the Arizona State
Library, Archives, and Public Records:
“ Every public officer who has public records in the public officer's custody shall
consult periodically with the state library and the state library shall determine whether
the records in question are of legal, administrative, historical, or other value. Those
records determined to be of legal, administrative, historical, or other value shall be
preserved. Those records determined to be of no legal, administrative, historical, or
other value shall be disposed of by such method as the state library may specify. A
report of records destruction that includes a list of all records disposed of shall be
filed at least annually with the state library on a form prescribed by the state library.”
General Retention Schedule for State Agencies
Specific record retention rule schedules for Arizona state agencies are created and
periodically revised by the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records. The
most recent revision is dated July 3, 2007 and contains specific guidelines state agencies
must follow for retaining documents related to all agency business functions.
27
Survey of Other States’ Departments of Transportation
The fourth task of the Arizona Department of Transportation Digital Signature Feasibility
Study required the researchers to survey other states’ transportation departments to
determine how they are using digital signature technology. The survey started on April
17, 2008, and ended May 2, 2008.
Survey Objectives
1. Understand other states’ transportation departments’ use of digital signatures and
plans to implement the technology in the future.
2. Determine which methods have been used to implement digital signature
technology. Identify which software vendors were used and overall satisfaction
with those vendors.
3. Understand how well transportation departments have achieved the benefits
associated with their digital signature technology implementations ( expectations,
benefits, implementation challenges).
Jan Edwards, of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
( AASHTO), provided a list of senior level and CIO contacts for every state department of
transportation. A survey was developed by the researchers and approved by the study
TAC on April 15, 2008 ( See Appendix). The questions were converted into an
electronic, web- based survey tool. A cover letter was created by AzDOT CIO Joe
Throckmorton introducing the survey and asking for help completing it.
The survey was distributed to the transportation departments of 47 states and the District
of Columbia. The only states not receiving a survey were Arizona, Ohio, and New York
( no DOT contacts were available for Ohio and New York). The survey completion rate
was high. In total, the researchers received responses from 36 states ( 75 percent response
rate). Of the 36 responses, 33 included full contact information and three were
submitted anonymously. A contact list is provided in Appendix 1.
Survey Results and Findings
Objective 1: Understand use of digital signatures by other states’ transportation
departments and their plans to implement the technology.
Summary of Findings
The use of digital signature technology is gaining traction with other states’ DOTs. More
than half the respondents have already implemented the technology ( 55.6 percent). Of
those that have not, over two- thirds ( 70.5 percent) expect to do so within the next two to
three years. Less than a third said they do not see the technology being adopted in the
foreseeable future.
For the states not using the technology ( 44.4 percent of the respondents), the two most
commonly cited reasons for not implementing the technology were that the technology
28
was not considered a priority ( 50 percent) and that the technology faced legal and
regulatory barriers ( 22 percent).
Digital signature technology is most commonly used to support internal processes ( 47
percent). This is followed by engineering design and bidding process ( 26 percent),
customer- based processes ( 19 percent), and other procurement ( 13 percent).
Key Results:
Table 10: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 1
Question Response
Percent
Has your organization implemented any form of digital signature
technology?
YES
NO
55.6%
44.4%
Briefly explain why you have not implemented digital signature
technology.
Not a business priority
Regulatory/ Legal issues
Other Reasons
50%
22%
28%
When do you believe your organization will implement some form of
digital signature technology?
Within the next year
Within the next 2- 3 years
Not for the foreseeable future
41.1%
70.5%
29.4%
Please select how you are using digital signature technology ( select all
that apply)
Customer- based ( license renewals, vehicle registration, etc.)
Procurement
Engineering & Engineering Bids
Internal Processes ( timesheets, system access requests)
15.8%
13%
26.3%
47.4%
What issues did you have getting your engineers to move to digital
signatures?
Legal/ Raised Seal issues
No resistance
Technical issues
50%
33%
17%
29
Objective 2: Determine which methods have been used to implement digital
signature technology. Identify which software vendors were used and overall
satisfaction with those vendors.
Summary of Findings
Those states that have already implemented digital signature technology have
overwhelmingly selected using third- party software over building customized solutions
internally ( 88.9 percent use third- party software; only 11 percent have built an internal
solution). Of the states that have used third- party software, 62.5 percent have purchased
software and integrated it into their existing infrastructure ( internally hosted) and 37.5
percent have purchased software and have it completely hosted externally.
There was little consistency in the vendors used to implement digital signature
technology. There were 10 different vendors named out of a total of 16 responses. Bid
Express and VeriSign were named by 20 percent and Silanis was named by 13 percent of
the respondents. The respondents are very happy with their vendor selection. Nearly 94
percent of those bought from a vendor said they would recommend the vendor they used.
Only one of the 16 respondents would not recommend her current vendor.
Key Results:
Table 11: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 2
Question Response
Percent
Please select the method used to implement your digital signature
technology.
Internal customized solution
Purchased third- party software/ internally hosted
Purchased third- party software/ externally hosted
11.1%
44.4%
33.3%
What third- party provider are you using?
Bid Express
VeriSign
Silanis
Other
Other vendors named: Lotus Notes, SoftTech, IBM, ViiSAGE, Entrust,
UserTrust, InfoTech
20%
20%
13%
47%
Would you recommend this vendor?
YES
NO
93.8%
6.3%
30
The following lists the vendors used by each state and whether the respondent
recommended them.
Vendor: Recommend? State:
Bid Express Yes IN
Bid Express Yes MN
Bid Express Yes AL
Entrust Digital Certificates/ Yes IL
hosted by the Illinois Central
Management Services.
IBM/ FileNet Yes NJ
InfoTech Yes MI
Lotus Notes Yes MO
Silanis Yes ND
Silanis Yes LA
Silanis ( workflow) Yes MN
Softech Yes NM
UserTrust/ Comodo No UT
Verisign Yes TX
Verisign Yes TN
Verisign Yes KS
ViiSAGE Yes WI
Objective 3: Understand how well departments of transportation have achieved the
benefits associated with their digital signature technology implementations
( expectations, benefits, implementation challenges).
Summary of Findings
The majority of states that have implemented some form of digital signature technology
report their programs have met or exceeded their expectations ( 72 percent). Because
many states have recently implemented their programs, 28 percent reported it was too
early to tell. The states, however, are optimistic about their programs’ chances of
meeting or exceeding expectations. Not a single respondent believed his program
wouldn’t eventually meet expectations.
The most commonly cited benefit to implementing digital signature technology was
improved workflows and shorter times to obtain approvals on internal processes and
procurement bids ( named by 50 percent). Improved security/ authentication was cited as
a benefit by 23 percent and 23 percent said their primary benefit has been a reduction in
printing and copying costs.
Most states reported facing challenges during and after implementing their digital
signature technology programs. Gaining organizational buy- in was cited as the most
common challenge ( 33 percent). Overcoming technical challenges was cited by 29
percent of respondents. It should be noted that 20 percent of the respondents said they
31
faced no significant challenges. This is somewhat surprising given the complexity of the
technical integration and significant changes in business workflows associated with
digital signature technology.
Key Results
Table 12: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 3
Question Response
Percent
How would you describe the benefits / savings your project achieved?
Benefits exceeded expectations
Benefits have met expectations
Benefits will meet expectations, but haven’t yet
Benefits will not meet expectations
Too early to tell/ no analysis completed
11.1%
61.1%
11.1%
0%
16.7%
What benefits have you realized?
Improved workflow/ shorter approval times
Improved security/ authentication
Reduced printing
Meets legal requirement
50%
22.7%
22.7%
4.5%
What challenges did you encounter?
Gaining organizational buy- in
Overcoming technical challenges
No significant challenges
Legal Issues
Post- implementation support
33%
28.6%
19%
9.5%
9.5%
Survey Conclusion
The Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT) has not yet implemented a true
digital signature technology program ( public/ private key digital certificates), but is
currently in the process of evaluating the feasibility of doing so. AzDOT is currently
using an approval workflow engine called Adobe LiveCycle to support “ eForms.” The
use of this product puts it on par with the majority of states who have implemented some
form of electronic approval workflow engine, but who have not implemented pure digital
signature technology. A number of states in the survey said they have adopted similar
workflow processes, but reported they are not leveraging actual digital signature
technology. It should be noted that respondents may have blurred the line between digital
signature technology and electronic approval and document management solutions.
Clearly, other DOTs have chosen to buy third- party vendor software over building
solutions themselves. This should provide AzDOT with a great opportunity to evaluate
32
vendor software options and obtain recommendations from other states about their
vendor’s performance and costs of externally hosting digital certificate processing. As
noted in the previous legal review section, there have been a limited number of legal
cases about the veracity of digital signatures. The more states that implement the
technology the stronger the workflow and legal standing of digital signature should
become.
In addition, AzDOT should be able to learn from other states’ experience in developing
future cost / benefit analysis, implementation strategies, and leveraging lessons
experienced by the other implementations. Based on the high response rate for the
survey and the fact that 33 states provided contact information for follow- up discussions,
AzDOT should be able to leverage its experiences to make its future program more
efficient.
The majority of respondents said their programs have performed at or are exceeding the
benefits they expected. The remaining states are optimistic about their programs’ future
performance. These implementations are clearly challenging so it should provide
AzDOT with some added confidence that an investment in this technology is worthwhile
and has the potential to provide important benefits.
Finally, AzDOT should consider the significant challenges faced by the other states. The
most commonly mentioned challenge was gaining organizational buy- in. This challenge
is larger than simply “ are you using digital signature technology ( e. g. digital
certificates)?” The challenge speaks more about the difficulty implementing an end- to-end
electronic workflow than it is about implementing true digital signature technology.
Clearly, an implementation must obtain buy- in from around the entire organization and
not be limited to being IT driven.
33
Advantages/ Disadvantages and Cost/ Benefit Profile
Section Summary
The fifth task of the Arizona Department of Transportation Digital Signature Feasibility
Study required the researchers to document the advantages and disadvantages and
cost/ benefit profiles for digital signature usage by the department. The TAC also
requested a profile of building an in- house digital signature solution versus leveraging a
third- party platform. The conclusions reached in this chapter are based on several sources
of information including the major findings of the previous sections of this feasibility
study ( AzDOT interviews, legal review, and findings from the survey of 32 other state
departments of transportation), several well documented case studies, and the
researchers’ personal experience in large- scale technical development.
Research Limitations
There were several limitations that must be noted:
• Interviews with AzDOT staff yielded only a limited set of potential candidate
transactions. Those transactions included: timesheets, system access requests,
training requests, travel request, and the processes involved in the Engineering
bidding and plan drawing process for which a proof- of- concept project is
currently in process.
The researchers learned that most of the internal transactions are already part of
AzDOT’s eForm initiative. The eForm initiative leverages electronic approval
workflow through the Adobe LiveCycle product. The transactions not already on
eForms are scheduled to be converted soon.
The conclusions reached in this section are based upon a review of the following
materials; each will be described in detail:
1. A review of the legal requirements of digital signature technology,
2. Survey results from 32 other state departments of transportation,
3. Case studies and white papers on the “ in- house development” vs. “ outsourcing”
of digital signature hosting ( digital certificate/ PKI hosting).
Legal Findings
According to A. R. S § 41- 132, Arizona law provides that an electronic signature “ may be
used to sign a writing on a document that is filed with or by a state agency, board or
commission and the electronic signature has the same force and effect as a written
34
signature.” It defines an electronic signature as “ an electronic or digital method of
identification that is executed or adopted by a person with the intent to be bound by or to
authenticate a record.” In order to be an electronic signature, it must meet the following
three conditions:
( 1) Be unique to the person using it,
( 2) Be capable of reliable verification,
( 3) Be linked to a record in a manner so that if the record is changed the electronic
signature is invalidated.
The above referenced portions of A. R. S. § 41- 132 were written to be technology neutral
and do not prescribe the particular technological approach.
According to the Arizona Electronic Transactions Act, A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the
AETA), Arizona law recognizes that a record or signature in electronic form cannot be
denied legal effect and enforceability solely because the record or signature is in
electronic form. Arizona law further recognizes that a contract formed by an electronic
record cannot be denied legal effect and enforceability solely because an electronic
record was used in its formation. Arizona law also provides that an electronic record
satisfies any law that requires a record to be in writing. Finally, Arizona law provides
that an electronic signature satisfies any law that requires a signature.
The AETA defines a secure electronic signature as one that is:
( 1) Unique to the person using it,
( 2) Capable of verification,
( 3) Under the sole control of the person using it,
( 4) Linked to the electronic record so that if the record is changed the electronic
signature is invalidated.
These statutes, and each of the requirements set forth for having a valid electronic
signature supports the idea that implementing a robust, well documented electronic
approval engine will suffice for most, if not all, of AzDOT’s previously identified
internal transactions without the use of actual PKI technology.
The same statute, A. R. S. § 41- 132, defines a digital signature as a “ type of electronic
signature that transforms a message through the use of an asymmetric cryptosystem.”
The requirements of a document containing a digital signature are:
( a) The document must contain a computer based certificate that ( 1) identifies the
issuing entity and the subscriber ( the subscriber lawfully holds the private key that
corresponds to the public key listed in the certificate and accepts the certificate),
( 2) contains the subscriber’s public key, and ( 3) is digitally signed by the issuing
entity.
The statute does not prescribe when an entity should apply formal digital signature
technology over an electronic signature.
35
A review of the State of Arizona, Policy Authority, Office of Secretary Electronic
Signing Policy ( April, 2002), ( http:// www. azsos. gov/ pa/ SigDynamicsCP) found
guidelines that agencies should consider. In section 2.1, agencies must “ determine what
level of trust ( basic, medium, and high) is appropriate for their needs. Applications
requiring higher assurance must incorporate a technology approved for those higher
levels of trust. This does not preclude using Signature Dynamic signing technologies in
circumstances requiring higher levels of trust. It merely requires additional technology to
provide the additional trust needed.”
Establishing trust levels is based on the potential risk involved and levels of security for
the highest risk type of transaction. There are three trust levels:
• Basic: There are risks and consequences of data compromise, but they are not
considered to be of major significance. This may include access to private
information where the likelihood of malicious access is not high. It is assumed at
this security level that users are not likely to be malicious.
• Medium: Risks and consequences of data compromise are moderate. This may
include transactions having substantial monetary value or risk of fraud, or
involving access to private information where the likelihood of malicious access
is substantial.
• High: Threats to data are high, or the consequences of the failure of security
services are high. This may include very high value transactions or high levels of
fraud risk.
The Electronic Signing Policy, section 2.4.8.1, ( http:// www. azsos. gov/ pa/ SigDynamicsCP),
addresses trust levels for:
1. Signer identification ( determining the signer is who he says he is),
2. Signer link to signature ( his intent to approve something),
3. Signature link to record integrity ( ensuring that once signed, a document cannot
be changed without invalidating the signature).
There is only a single reference to the use of PKI technology in the policy. Section
2.4.8.1.3 outlines methods for linking an electronic signature to the integrity of the signed
record.
“ There must be some method to ensure that the signature is linked to the record
content that the signer intended to sign in such a manner that any change to the
record since the record was signed is detectable and invalidates the signature.”
PKI usage is prescribed only when the high level of trust is warranted. It is our opinion
that the high level of trust is not reached for the majority of AzDOT internal forms;
however, this reference may be of particular importance to the current effort to develop
electronic approval processes for AzDOT Engineering.
36
Survey Results from 32 Other State Department of Transportation
Organizations
Most departments of transportation have overwhelmingly chosen to leverage a third- party
vendor for their PKI implementations over building an internally hosted solution ( 88.9
percent use third- party software; only 11 percent have built an internal solution).
The majority of states using some form of digital signature technology have implemented
third- party- approval workflow engines that are not necessarily leveraging true digital
signature technology ( e. g. not using PKI / Digital certificates). A strategy used by a
number of states has been to implement a third- party document management and
electronic approval workflow engine to make internal processes like timesheets, system
access requests, and some forms of procurement functions more efficient. Integrating
these approval engines with a recognized third- party digital certificate issuing authority
has been done only when state statutes specifically required the additional security and
for transactions classified with higher risk.
Case Study Review: In­House
Development Versus Outsourcing
Digital Certificate Technology
The following section considers the advantages and disadvantages of developing an
internal digital signature/ PKI infrastructure versus leveraging a third- party provider. It is
the researchers’ conclusion that leveraging the expertise and infrastructure of a third-party
solution would be the best choice for the Arizona Department of Transportation.
Cost Considerations
The estimates contained in this section apply only to the deployment of a digital signature
solution using digital certificates in a full PKI implementation. These estimates do not
include an electronic approval workflow engine or document management system.
AzDOT has already purchased Adobe’s LiveCycle workflow engine.
37
In- House Development of a Full PKI/ Digital Signature Solution
Table 13: High- Level Costs of In- House Development of a PKI Solution
Major Cost Factors
In- house
Development
Estimating Assumptions
Assumes deployment of
2,000 users
Development Resources:
The cost of IT Staff needed to
implement a PKI infrastructure
and integrate it into many
interfacing systems.
$ 156,600 ( one
time)
Assumes 4 FTEs ( 1)( 2)
( Security Analyst @$ 40/ hr, 3
Client/ Server Developers
@$ 35/ hr) for 6 months.
Calculation:
($ 40x1080hrs)+( 3,240hrs x
$ 35) = $ 156,600
AzDOT resource costs based
on PlanView Primary Role
Rates Document ( ITG)
Software Costs:
PKI software must be purchased to
run on internal servers and client
PCs.
$ 87,000 ( one
time)
$ 17,400 ( annual
maintenance)
Server based licenses( 1):
$ 27,000
Client license( 1): $ 60,000
($ 30/ client x 2000)
Total = $ 87,000
Maintenance( 1) = 20%/ Yr
New Hardware( 1):
PKI software typically must run on
a dedicated server. Given the size
of the AzDOT environment, a very
high end server is required. In
addition to a primary production
server, a secondary server for
backup is required. Backup server
may also be used for testing.
Finally, given the critical nature of
digital certificate management, a
disaster recovery (“ Hot Site”) is
highly recommended.
There will be requirements for
incremental telecommunications
equipment ( routers, firewalls, load
$ 37,000( 1)
( one time)
$ 7,400 ( annual
maintenance)
Production Server ( 4,500)
Backup Server ( 4,500)
Disaster Recovery Site
( 5,000)
Telecom equipment: ( 10,000)
Root- Key Mgmt Hardware
( 13,000)
Maintenance( 1) – 20% Yr
38
balancers, web servers, database
servers; security equipment
( access controls, monitoring), and
a highly secure root- key
management process ( hardened
token cabinets)
PKI Consulting Expertise ( 2)
Because PKI technology will be
new to ADOT IT Staff, it is very
likely a PKI expert( s) will be
required during the duration of the
project. Consultant would be for
workflow design as well as
technical development/ integration
work.
$ 175,000 ( one
time)
1400 hrs x $ 125/ hr =
$ 175,000 ( 2)
Ongoing Maintenance:
Annual FTE cost of maintaining
infrastructure and applications.
$ 109,200
( annual)
1.5 FTE ( Technical
Support)( 1)
2080 x 1.5 x $ 35/ hr =
$ 109,200
Assumes a client/ server
development resource.
Administration Costs:
Cost of establishing new users,
deleting, maintaining certificates
$ 78,000
( annual)
1.5 FTE ( 1)
2080 x 1.5 x $ 25/ hr
Assumes a Business Analyst
level resource
TOTALS
ONE TIME
ANNUAL
$ 455,600
$ 212,000
TOTAL 3- YEAR COST $ 1,091,600
455,600 x ($ 212,000 x 3) =
$ 1,091,600
( 1) VeriSign, Total Cost of Ownership for Public Key Infrastructure, White Paper;
http:// www. verisign. com/ authentication/ enterprise- authentication/ managed- pki/ index. html
( 2) Silanis, Build vs. Buy – What to Consider, Webinar; http:// www. silanis. com/ resource-center/
webcasts. html
( 3) Kansas Department of Transportation, 12/ 18/ 2006 Price Quotation Sheet
39
Integration of a Third- Party Digital Signature/ PKI Solution
Table 14: High- Level Costs of Third- Party PKI Solution
Major Cost Factors
Third Party Estimating Assumptions
Assumes deployment of
2,000 users
Annual Managed Service Fee:
Typically an annual fee based for
managing a PKI infrastructure at
third party ( e. g. Maintaining the
certificate)
$ 45,500 ( annual)
( 3)
User Licenses
Vendors typically assign a charge
for each certificate issued.
$ 32,000 ( annual)
( 3)
$ 16/ per license, per year x
2,000 potential users ( 3)
Initial Setup Fee:
Most third parties will charge a
one- time setup fee.
$ 18,000 ( one-time)
( 3)
Development Resources ( 1):
The cost of IT Staff needed to
implement a PKI infrastructure
and integrate it into many
interfacing systems.
$ 19,030 ( one-time)
Need internal staff for
integration work. Estimated
at 1- 2 resources for 60 days ( 1)
1.5 FTEs ( 1 Developer + .5
Security Analyst) for 60 days
( 346hrs x $ 35/ hr)+ ( 173Hrs x
$ 40/ hr) = $ 19,030
AzDOT FTE pricing based on
recent PlanView Primary
Role Rates for ITG Document
PKI Consulting Expertise ( 2):
Because PKI technology will be
new to ADOT IT Staff, it is very
likely a PKI expert( s) will be
required for the duration of the
project. The consultant would be
for workflow design as well as
technical development/ integration
work.
$ 64,875 ( one-time)
1.5 Consultants( 2) x 346 hrs x
$ 125/ hr = $ 64,875
Ongoing Maintenance:
Annual cost of maintaining
infrastructure and applications.
N/ A Typically included in Annual
Service Fee
40
Administration Costs:
Cost of establishing new users,
deleting, maintaining certificates
$ 78,000 ( annual) 1.5 FTE ( 1)
2080 x 1.5 x $ 25/ hr
Assumes a Business Analyst
level resource
TOTALS
ONE TIME
ANNUAL
$ 101,905
$ 155,500
TOTAL 3- YEAR COST
$ 558,405
101,905 x ($ 155,500 x 3) =
$ 558,405
( 1) VeriSign, Total Cost of Ownership for Public Key Infrastructure, White Paper;
http:// www. verisign. com/ authentication/ enterprise- authentication/ managed- pki/ index. html
( 2) Silanis, Build vs. Buy – What to Consider, Webinar; http:// www. silanis. com/ resource-center/
webcasts. html
( 3) Kansas Department of Transportation, 12/ 18/ 2006 Price Quotation Sheet
There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to in- sourcing development work versus
leveraging a third- party digital signature/ PKI vendor.
Advantages to leveraging a third- party solution:
Table 15: Advantages to Leveraging a Third- Party Solution
Faster Time to Market According to the existing case studies, the average
implementation for an in- house development project
is six months while a typical third- party
implementation is 30- 60 days.( 1)
Proven, Mature Solutions Leverages the experience the vendor has accumulated
during many similar implementations across a wide
variety of public and private organizations and
industries. ( 1)
Legal Opinions Building a customized solution may expose AzDOT
to legal and compliance challenges. Vendors
solutions have been audited, reviewed, and tested
legally. Vendors may even take some or all of the
liability when challenged. ( 1)
Audits Vendor security procedures and infrastructure are
constantly audited. Developing an internal solution
may increase AzDOT’s exposure to new audits of IT
infrastructure, processes, and security practices. ( 1)
Increased emphasis on research
and development and
maintaining industry/ legislative
awareness
Companies that specialize in digital signature services
are motivated to stay current on fraud and “ plug
holes.” They also remain current on new legislation
and adjust their products to remain competitive and
relevant in the market place. They may also invest in
research and development which would be difficult
for AzDOT to make similar investments to keep their
in- house development current.
( 1) Silanis, Build vs. Buy, Case Study
41
Disadvantages to leveraging a third- party solution:
Table 16: Disadvantages to Leveraging a Third- Party Solution
Being tied to a particular vendor AzDOT should consider the difficulty of changing
vendors; essentially, a vendor’s solution will become
embedded into the AzDOT infrastructure and
business process. Replacing that vendor will require
a significant cost in the re- bidding process,
integration, and change management/ training should
it eventually be replaced.
Lack of flexibility Vendors are generally reluctant to enhance their
applications or change their processes.
Service Level Agreement
Management
A relationship management function will need to be
created to closely monitor established SLA
performance.
System Upgrades/ Releases Vendors periodically enhance their software. When
this occurs, customers typically are required to
upgrade even if there are no direct benefits gained.
This creates additional work in many areas including
for development staff who may need to adjust file
formats and integrations, acceptance testing, and
training.
Advantages of In- house development:
Table 17: Advantages of In- House Development
Flexibility AzDOT may determine an enhancement may
improve a workflow; much easier to assign internal
resources than to work with a vendor’s change cycle
No Long- Term Dependence on a
Third Party
AzDOT has control of its digital signature
environment and PKI infrastructure. This includes
the possibility that a vendor may de- emphasize PKI,
discontinue support of its PKI Software, exit the
business, or be acquired by another firm, etc.
42
Disadvantages of In- house development:
Table 18: Disadvantages of In- House Development
Outside of core expertise Developing an internal solution may be well outside
the development work typically completed by
AzDOT IT staff. Having resources focus on non- core
capabilities is typically an inefficient development
model.( 1)
Unknown effort As a new technology to AzDOT, there is little staff
experience to properly assess the complexity of the
project, develop accurate plans and estimates, and
appropriately manage customer expectations. ( 1)
Learning Curve A lengthy learning curve will be experienced during
development. The new technology will be highly
integrated across the AzDOT infrastructure. Over
time, this increases the cost of training new staff and
makes turnover of key resources that much more
impactful. Having a core development team of 3- 4
FTEs means that knowledge will be resident in a
limited number of resources. ( 1)
Opportunity Cost Because of the lengthy development cycle of six
months, the resources devoted to digital
signature/ PKI rollout could be working on other
initiatives, creating a cost when measured against the
time of outsourcing. ( 1)
Changing management priorities As with any long duration project, priorities change
over time that could have a significant impact on
successfully implementing an in- house development
project.
( 1) Silanis, Build Vs. Buy, Case Study
43
Conclusion
Our conclusion, based on the available sources, is that a well documented, third- party
electronic approval workflow application ( e. g., Adobe’s LiveCycle) or a similar
electronic approval workflow engine, provides the necessary structure to make virtually
all internal processes and transactions compliant with Federal and Arizona electronic and
digital signature guidelines. It is important to note that a robust electronic approval
process does not necessarily require the use of formal digital signature technology ( e. g.,
Public/ Private key digital certificates). As a reminder, formal digital signature
technology is defined as using public- key cryptography, certificate authorities, and other
enabling services.
Our conclusion applies to the internal processes/ transactions identified throughout this
feasibility study including; timesheets, system access requests, travel request and other
employee forms. These are commonly referred to as eForms within the department.
AzDOT has already rolled out many internal eForms using the Adobe LiveCycle
electronic approval workflow application. Others, like timesheets and system access
requests are scheduled to be converted into eForms this year. Even more sophisticated
transactions, like those used by Engineering ( bidding, plan drawing processes) may not
require the full use of PKI technology in order to meet Federal and Arizona guidelines.
The full use of digital signature technology must be based on an assessment of risk.
AzDOT has not previously been presented with a particularly challenging digital
signature project. Most forms are fairly basic, ( time sheets, access requests, etc).
Engineering has provided the first of many more complex challenges yet to come. If they
haven’t, AzDOT Leadership needs to complete a formal review and risk assessment of
signatures on the various engineering documents. A solution being studied by a current
Engineering project team would not use full PKI capabilities. In our opinion, the solution
would meet the Secretary of State guidelines of a medium risk transaction.
If AzDOT leadership finds transactions like those used by Engineering or other business
applications where the risks or desired levels of trust warrant additional security
measures, a full PKI implementation would be a more desirable solution. Leveraging an
external third party application is clearly our recommended implementation method. The
Adobe LiveCycle product that AzDOT is using has additional modules that can be
licensed to provide full PKI capabilities.
44
Appendix 1: State DOT Personnel that Responded to the Survey
Name: State: Email Phone Number:
Gary Blanton GA gblanton@ dot. ga. gov 404- 656- 6034
Mark R. Evans TX mevans2@ dot. state. tx. us 512- 465- 7453
Jon Clark KY jon. clark@ ky. gov 502- 564- 8900
Robert Ashmore NM robert. ashmore@ state. nm. us 505- 897- 7886
Nelson Hill, FL nelson. hill@ dot. state. fl. us 850- 414- 4499
Rhonda Ringer DE rhonda. ringer@ state. de. us 302- 760- 2607
Tom Westfall WA WestfaT@ wsdot. wa. gov 360- 705- 7638
Tom Hurd VT tom. hurd@ state. vt. us 802- 828- 3426
Jay Lytle IN jlytle@ indot. in. gov 317- 234- 5268
Leon Jackson DC leon. jackson@ dc. gov 202- 741- 5384
Doug Couto MI coutod@ michigan. gov 517- 241- 2899
Mark D. Kinkade IL Mark. Kinkade@ Illinois. gov 217- 785- 2400
Andy Crenshaw AL crenshawa@ dot. state. al. us 334- 242- 6264
Dane Prescott NH Dane. Prescott@ oit. nh. gov 603- 271- 3281
Mike Bousliman MT mbousliman@ mt. gov 406- 444- 6159
Mark Herring TN mark. herring@ state. tn. us 615- 254- 6409
Allan Haverkamp KS allanh@ ksdot. org 785- 296- 4656
Thomas Kennedy NJ thomas. kennedy@ dot. state. nj. us 609- 530- 6252
Renee Ye UT rye@ utah. gov 801- 964- 4598
Augustus Wagner MN gus. wagner@ dot. state. mn. us 651- 366- 4237
David Allaby WI david. allaby@ wisconsin. gov 608- 26709786
Murali Rao VA Murali. Rao@ vdot. virginia. gov 804- 786- 9702
Suzanne Gehring OR Suzanne. D. Gehring@ odot. state. or. us 503- 986- 6385
Steven Hulsey NC shulsey@ dot. state. nc. us 919- 707- 2201
James E. Yarsky MD jyarsky@ sha. state. md. us 410- 545- 8680
Bill Wehling NE bill. wehling@ nebraska. gov 402- 479- 3986
Dominic Cali LA domcali@ dotd. la. gov 225- 242.4699
Russ Buchholz ND rjbuchholz@ nd. gov 701- 328- 2561
Nancy Armentrout ME nancy. armentrout@ maine. gov 207- 624- 3209
CISO CA CISO@ dot. ca. gov 916- 653- 0972
Ken Slay MS kslay@ mdot. state. ms. us 601- 359- 9829
Bryan Stewart AR bryan. stewart@ arkansashighways. com501- 569- 2436
Todd Walters MO todd. walters@ modot. mo. gov 573- 526- 3164
45
Appendix 2: Survey Questions
The following survey was used to obtain input from the other states’ DOT.
QUESTION
ANSWER
1 Has your organization implemented any
form of Digital Signature Technology?
Yes / No
If answer is yes, the survey will
automatically skip to question 4
If answer is no, the survey will move to the
following questions
2 Please briefly explain why you have not
implemented Digital Signature Technology.
FREE FORM TEXT BOX
3 When do you believe your organization will
implement some form of Digital Signature
Technology?
a. Less than a year
b. Within the next year
c. Within the next 2- 3 years
d. Not in the foreseeable future
For the “ No digital signature path” - The
survey will ask for the name/ phone
number of someone we can contact later.
The survey will thank them for their time.
Digital Signature “ YES” path
4 Please select how you are using Digital
Signature Technology ( select all that apply)
Select all that apply:
a. Customer- based ( license
renewals, vehicle registration,
etc.)
b. Procurement
c. Engineering
d. Internal processes ( timesheets,
system access requests, etc.)
e. Other: OPEN A Free Form Text
Box
5 Please select the method used to implement
your Digital Signature Technology
a. Internal customized solution
b. Purchased 3rd party software /
internally hosted ( runs on your
organization’s infrastructure)
c. Externally hosted by a third party
provider ( does not run on your
organization’s infrastructure)
46
QUESTION
ANSWER
5a What third party provider are you using? --
This opens only if they select b or c on
question 5
FREE FORM TEXT BOX
Vendor contact information
5b Would you recommend this vendor? YES / NO
6 How would you describe the benefits /
savings your project has achieved
a. Benefits have exceeded our
expectations
b. Benefits have met our
expectations
c. Benefits will meet expectations,
but haven’t yet
d. Benefits will not met
expectations
e. Too early to tell / No post-implementation
analysis has been
completed.
7 What benefits have you realized? FREE FORM TEXT BOX
8 What major challenges did you encounter? FREE FORM TEXT BOX
9 We would like to include the information
that you provided in our study. We might
also contact you for clarifications. Please
provide us with some information about
yourself.
TEXT BOX FOR NAME, EMAIL,
PHONE

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. I may not be downloaded, reproduced, or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution

Digital Signature Feasibility Study
Final Report 534
Prepared by:
Arrowhead Solutions, Inc
16841 N. 31st Avenue
Suite 141
Phoenix, AZ 85053
June 2008
Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts
and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation. This report does not
constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers names that may
appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the
report. The U. S. Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or
manufacturers.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
FHWA- AZ- 08- 534
2. Government Accession
No.
3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
5. Report Date
June 2008
4. Title and Subtitle
Digital Signature Feasibility Study 6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Chris Cioffi & Rob Fallows
8. Performing Organization Report No.
10. Work Unit No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Arrowhead Solutions, Inc
16841 N. 31st Avenue
Suite 141
Phoenix, AZ 85053
11. Contract or Grant No.
SPR- PL- 1( 59) 534
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
FINAL
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Project Manager: John Semmens
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Prepared in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the advantages and disadvantages of using digital signatures to assist the
Department in conducting business. The Department is evaluating the potential of performing more electronic
transactions ( e. g., electronic bidding, procurement, Motor Vehicle transactions, etc.) Many of the Department’s candidate
transactions require one or more ink signatures before they can be processed. The basic challenge is that without a
means to provide verifiable and binding electronic signatures, many transactions become Internet ineligible and cannot
become part of the Department’s e- service portfolio. E- Government relies on secure communication between two or
more trusting parties. Digital signatures may provide the missing component that would allow certain transactions to be
performed electronically.
A great deal of information was found addressing digital signature technology and a number of case studies were used
by the researchers. In addition, the researchers conducted a review of Arizona and Federal statutes to assess the legal
requirements pertaining to the veracity of digital and electronic signatures. A survey of other states’ transportation
departments was completed to determine what digital signature technologies are being used. 36 states responded to
the survey. Most states have either implemented a form of digital signature technology or are in the process of doing so.
Most have chosen to leverage the capabilities of third- party software providers and not internal development by their
staff. Finally, the researchers leveraged case studies and interviews with a leading digital certificate/ PKI vendor to
establish a basic cost profile for developing an internal solution and leveraging a third- party solution. The three year cost
of a third party solution was significantly less than building a solution internally.
Based on the available sources, the researchers concluded that a well documented, third party electronic approval
workflow application ( e. g., AzDOT’s use of Adobe’s LiveCycle product) or a similar electronic approval workflow engine,
provides the necessary structure to make virtually all internal processes and transactions compliant with Federal and
State digital signature guidelines. It is important to note that a robust electronic approval process does not necessarily
require the use of formal digital signature technology ( e. g., Public/ Private key digital certificates).
17. Key Words
Digital Signatures, electronic signatures, electronic
approval
18. Distribution statement
19. Security Classification
Unclassified
20. Security Classification
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
52
22. Price
23. Registrant’s Seal
SI* ( MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft
yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
yd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 Square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd3
NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3.
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
T short tons ( 2000lb) 0.907 megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
mg
( or “ t”)
mg megagrams
( or “ metric ton”)
1.102 short tons ( 2000lb) T
TEMPERATURE ( exact) TEMPERATURE ( exact)
º F Fahrenheit
temperature
5( F- 32)/ 9
or ( F- 32)/ 1.8
Celsius temperature º C º C Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit
temperature
º F
ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION
fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot- candles fc
fl foot- Lamberts 3.426 candela/ m2 cd/ m2 cd/ m2 candela/ m2 0.2919 foot- Lamberts fl
FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
lbf/ in2 poundforce per
square inch
6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per
square inch
lbf/ in2
SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 1
Stakeholder Interview Section ................................................................................... 5
Interview Summary ................................................................................................ 5
Stakeholder’s Expectations of Digital Signature Feasibility Study Outcomes...... 6
Candidate Transactions Identified.......................................................................... 7
Potential Benefits of Digital Signature Technology from the
Stakeholder’s Perspective................................................................................ 7
Stakeholder Concerns about Digital Signature Technology .................................. 8
Review of Existing Literature.................................................................................... 9
Documents Reviewed During Feasibility Research............................................... 9
State of Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policy............................. 9
Federal Government – E- Sign Documentation................................................. 11
Independent Research – Vendor White Papers, Case Studies,
and Miscellaneous Research ...................................................................... 12
Review of Previous AzDOT Digital Signature Technology Research............. 14
Digital Signature Definition – What is PKI?........................................................ 14
Digital Signature Implementation Approaches .................................................... 16
Customized Internal Solution............................................................................ 16
Internally Hosted – Packaged Solution............................................................. 16
Externally Hosted Solution ............................................................................... 16
Commonly Cited Benefits of an End- to- End Digital Signature Process ............. 17
Digital Signatures – Part of an End- to- End Document Life Cycle...................... 18
Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges ..................................................... 19
Digital Signature Technology Legal Review........................................................... 21
What is Arizona law regarding the use of digital and electronic signatures? ...... 21
I. State Agencies – A. R. S. § 41- 132 ................................................................. 21
II. Arizona Electronic Transactions Act – A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the
“ AETA”) ........................................................................................................... 22
III. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Arizona ......................................... 23
IV. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Other Jurisdictions ....................... 23
Document Retention Guidelines........................................................................... 24
What are the policies governing the retention of electronic documents?......... 24
Guidelines Established by the NECCC E- Sign Workgroup............................. 25
State of Arizona Records Retention Policy ...................................................... 25
Summary of Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing Policy .............................. 26
Summary of A. R. S. § 41- 1351.......................................................................... 26
General Retention Schedule for State Agencies ............................................... 26
Survey of Other States’ Departments of Transportation ......................................... 27
Survey Objectives................................................................................................. 27
Survey Results and Findings ................................................................................ 27
Survey Conclusion................................................................................................ 31
Advantages/ Disadvantages and Cost/ Benefit Profile .............................................. 33
Section Summary.................................................................................................. 33
Research Limitations ............................................................................................ 33
Legal Findings ...................................................................................................... 33
Survey Results from 32 Other State Department of
Transportation Organizations ......................................................................... 36
Case Study Review: In- House Development Versus Outsourcing
Digital Certificate Technology...................................................................... 36
Cost Considerations .......................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 43
Appendix 1: State DOT Personnel that Responded to the Survey .......................... 44
Appendix 2: Survey Questions ................................................................................ 45
List of Tables
Table 1: AzDOT Personnel Interviewed for Digital Signature Study 5
Table 2: Summary of Interview Results 6
Table 3: Summary of Stakeholder’s Concerns 8
Table 4: Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policies: 9
Table 5: Federal Government E- Sign Documents 11
Table 6: White Papers and Case Studies 12
Table 7: Previous AzDOT Research 14
Table 8: Commonly Cited Benefits of Digital Signatures 17
Table 9: Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges 19
Table 10: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 1 28
Table 11: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 2 29
Table 12: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 3 31
Table 13: High- Level Costs of In- House Development of a PKI Solution 37
Table 14: High- Level Costs of Third- Party PKI Solution 39
Table 15: Advantages to Leveraging a Third- party Solution 40
Table 16: Disadvantages to Leveraging a Third- party Solution 41
Table 17: Advantages of In- House Development 41
Table 18: Disadvantages of In- House Development 42
Glossary of Acronyms
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ABA American Bar Association
AESI Arizona Electronic Signature Infrastructure
AETA Arizona Electronic Transactions Act
ANSI American National Standards Institute
A. R. S. Arizona Revised Statues
ASP Application Service Provider
AzDOT Arizona Department of Transportation
CAD Computer Aided Design
ESI Electronic Signature Infrastructure
FTE Full- Time Equivalent
IT Information Technology
KDOT Kansas Department of Transportation
NECCC National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council
PGP Pretty Good Privacy
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
SLA Service Level Agreement
SSO Single Sign- On
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
UETA Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Executive Summary
In March 2008 the Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT) initiated the Digital
Signature Feasibility study. The purpose of this study was to assess the advantages and
disadvantages of using digital signatures to assist the Department in conducting business.
The Department is evaluating the potential of performing more electronic transactions
( e. g., electronic bidding, procurement, Motor Vehicle transactions, etc.) Many of the
Department’s candidate transactions require one or more ink signatures before they can
be processed. The basic challenge is that without a means to provide verifiable and bind-ing
electronic signage, many transactions become Internet ineligible and cannot become
part of the Department’s e- service portfolio. E- Government relies on secure communica-tion
between two or more trusting parties. Digital signatures may provide the missing
component that would allow certain transactions to be performed electronically. They
may also provide the desired level of security, privacy, and authenticity required for the
Department’s electronic messages. With the volume of e- commerce and business- to-business
transactions increasing, the acceptance of digital signatures may be more a
question of when, rather than if.
The project was divided into four major tasks:
• Interview Department staff whose work processes might be candidates for digital
signatures.
• Review the literature on digital signatures and their legal veracity.
• Survey other state transportation departments to ascertain whether any use digital
signatures.
• Develop advantages/ disadvantages and cost/ benefit profiles for digital signature
usage by the Department.
What Is a Digital Signature and How DoesIt Work?
In the simplest usage of digital signatures, a user will sign an electronic document with
his/ her digital signature and then send the document to another person. The second
person can electronically verify that the digital signature is valid and that the document
has not been modified after it was signed. The second person will use digital keys,
signatures and time stamps to enable “ authentication” of electronic documents and
assurance of the identity of the signature. The tools needed by both people in this process
are provided by a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system and a trusted third- party
certification authority. A PKI system creates and manages digital certificates. It is used
to grant, renew, and revoke digital certificates for end- users. There are a number of
standards for PKI messages; Arizona requires that PKI systems comply with American
National Standards Institute ( ANSI) x. 509 and x. 500 standards. To verify a signature, the
verifier must have access to the signer’s public key and have assurance that it
corresponds to the signer’s private key ( which is always kept private). A trusted third
party “ Certification Authority” provides this service.
1
2
The main components of a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system include: digital
signatures, public- key cryptography, certificate authorities, and enabling services.
Public- key cryptography is the heart of a PKI system. It is a mathematical capability used
to encrypt ( secure) and decrypt ( validate) using public and private keys. Digital
signatures cannot be deployed without having a fully functional PKI system that is
capable of generating and maintaining digital certificates.
Digital and Electronic Signature Legal Review
Arizona law sets forth specific requirements for electronic signatures that are used to
“ sign” documents filed with or by a state agency. A digital signature is a “ type of
electronic signature that transforms a message through the use of an asymmetric
cryptosystem,” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 3)). The Arizona Electronic Transactions Act
( A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq.) further demonstrates the legislature’s concern with the veracity
of electronic signatures in transactions relating to the conduct of business, commercial or
governmental affairs.
State Agencies – A. R. S. § 41- 132
Arizona law provides that an electronic signature “ may be used to sign as writing on a
document that is filed with or by a state agency, board or commission and the electronic
signature has the same force and effect as a written signature,” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( A)). An
electronic signature has to be ( 1) unique to the person using it, ( 2) capable of reliable
verification, and ( 3) linked to a record in a manner so that if the record is changed the
electronic signature is invalidated, ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( B)).
Arizona Electronic Transactions Act – A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the “ AETA”)
Arizona law recognizes that a record or signature in electronic form cannot be denied
legal effect and enforceability solely because the record or signature is in electronic form,
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( A)). Arizona law further recognizes that a contract formed by an
electronic record cannot be denied legal effect and enforceability solely because an
electronic record was used in its formation, ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( B)). Arizona law also
provides that an electronic record satisfies any law that requires a record to be in writing,
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( C)). Finally, Arizona law provides that an electronic signature
satisfies any law that requires a signature, ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( D)). The AETA defines a
secure electronic signature as one that is ( 1) unique to the person using it, ( 2) is capable
of verification, ( 3) is under the sole control of the person using it, and ( 4) is linked to the
electronic record so that if the record is changed the electronic signature is invalidated,
( A. R. S. § 44- 7031).
Retention Guidelines
According to Arizona and Federal guidelines, documents digitally or electronically
signed are generally held to follow the same retention requirements as paper documents.
Retention of digital signature documents is also addressed in the Signature Dynamics
3
Electronic Signing Policy for electronic signature usages created by the Policy Authority
of the Office of the Secretary of State ( April, 2002). The Electronic Signing Policy is
intended for use by Arizona agencies, boards, commissions, and their electronic signing
partners. It was created by the State of Arizona’s Electronic Signature Infrastructure
( AESI) and is managed by Arizona’s Policy Authority.
In this policy document, under section 5.8.2 “ Retention period for Archive” the signing
process information must be retained for the “ legal” life of the most enduring document
signed within the ESI. If that “ legal” life is unknown, then the information must be kept
for at least 30 years. Specific record retention rule schedules for Arizona agencies are
created and periodically revised by the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public
Records. The most recent revision was dated July 3, 2007, and contains specific
guidelines Arizona agencies must follow for retaining documents related to all agency
business functions.
Survey of other States’ Department of Transportation
The researchers completed a survey of other states’ transportation departments to
determine how they are using digital signature technology. The survey started on April
17, 2008, and ended May 2, 2008. The researchers received responses from 36 states for
a 75 percent response rate.
The objectives of the survey were to:
1. Understand use of digital signatures by other states’ transportation departments
and their plans to implement the technology in the future.
2. Determine which methods have been used to implement digital signature
technology. Identify which software vendors were used and overall satisfaction
with those vendors.
3. Understand how well transportation departments have achieved the benefits
associated with their digital signature technology implementations ( expectations,
benefits, implementation challenges).
The use of digital signature technology is gaining traction with other states’
transportation departments. More than half the respondents have already implemented
the technology ( 55.6 percent). Of those that have not, 70.5 percent expect to do so within
the next two to three years. Most transportation departments have chosen to leverage a
third- party vendor for their digital signature implementations over building an internally
hosted solution ( 88.9 percent use third- party software; only 11 percent have built an
internal solution). The majority of states that have implemented digital signature
technology report their programs have met or exceeded their expectations ( 72 percent).
Not a single responding state believed its program wouldn’t eventually meet
expectations. The most commonly cited benefit to implementing digital signature
technology was improved workflows and shorter times to obtain approvals on internal
processes and procurement bids ( named by 50 percent). Improved
security/ authentication was cited as a benefit by 23 percent and 23 percent said their
primary benefit has been a reduction in printing and copying costs.
4
Cost/ Benefit Profile of Digital Signature Technology Deployment at AzDOT
Another important aspect of the feasibility study was whether AzDOT should build a
customized digital signature infrastructure internally or use a third- party solution. The
researchers completed a high- level cost/ benefit profile of the internal solution and one for
a third party. From a cost perspective, the anticipated cost of developing an internal
solution at an enterprise level has a three- year cost of $ 1,091,600 while leveraging a
third- party solution had a three- year cost of $ 558,405.
Summary of Findings
Based on the available sources, the researchers concluded that a well- documented, third-party
electronic approval workflow application ( e. g., Adobe’s LiveCycle or a similar
electronic approval workflow engine) provides the necessary structure to make virtually
all internal processes and transactions compliant with Federal and state electronic and
digital signature guidelines. It is important to note that a robust electronic approval
process does not necessarily require the use of formal digital signature technology ( e. g.,
Public/ Private key digital certificates).
5
Stakeholder Interview Section
The first task of the Digital Signature Feasibility study was to conduct interviews with
key Arizona Department of Transportation stakeholders. The study’s Technical Advisory
Committee ( TAC) provided a list of stakeholders who have been involved in previous
digital signature research. All of the stakeholders interviewed were knowledgeable about
the technology and were well acquainted with the history of digital signature research at
AzDOT.
Table 1 – Summary of AzDOT Personnel Interviewed for the Study
Thomas Branham
Sr. Manager
Account management for mainframe and distributed
technologies. Responsible for security, firewall, intrusion, and
anti- virus.
Giuly Caceres
Sr. Project Manager
Project Manager in the Statewide Project Management Section.
Rich Nacinovich
Manager
Server Team Leader responsible for application support,
storage, backups, Exchange, and technical uplifts.
Daryl Odom
Information Specialist
IV
Supports infrastructure for the Engineering Technology Group.
Responsible for archiving data, application support ( CAD
Apps), and researching new capabilities. Currently working on
a digital signature proof- of- concept test.
Jamie Rybarczyk
Information
Technology Specialist
Technical support for firewalls, security, and digital driver’s
license support.
Suzan Tasvibi- Tanha
Strategic Business
Services Manager
Responsible for strategic technology planning, program
management, program office functions, managing contractors,
and liaison with consulting firms. Monitors legislation and
supports many AzDOT special projects.
Interview Summary
The interviews provided background on the history of digital signature initiatives at
AzDOT. In addition, they provided an opportunity for stakeholders to express input on
how the technology would be best placed in the organization.
6
The researchers used a standardized interview guide to collect the following information:
Table 2 – Summary of Interview Results
Interview Objective Result
Understand the background of
digital signature work at AzDOT
The interviews oriented the researchers with several
partially completed studies. Research on digital
signatures at AzDOT dates back to 2002 and
includes an actual technology pilot in 2004 that
didn’t move forward.
Collect previous documentation The researchers were provided with documentation
from the previous work.
Determine what the stakeholders
are most interested in seeing in the
feasibility study.
Results found on page 15
Understand the high- level cost of
developing an in- house solution
and determine if any cost analysis
is available.
Between 2002 and 2004, AzDOT staff worked on a
Project Investment Justification document that
contained helpful “ cost” information. This
information is considered further in the study.
Identify transactions/ processes that
are candidates for digital
signatures
Results found on page 16
Understand the stakeholders’
perspective on benefits / concerns
of deploying digital signature
technology
Results found on pages 17- 18
Stakeholder’s Expectations of Digital Signature Feasibility Study
Outcomes
In addition to the deliverables stated in the feasibility study statement of work, each
stakeholder was asked what were the most important items he would need to see in the
final report. The following expectations were expressed by these stakeholders:
1. Recommendations for “ building” versus “ buying” a digital signature solution.
2. A summary of other states’ efforts relative to digital signatures and how AzDOT
compares.
3. A perspective of the lessons learned by the other states.
4. A summary of Arizona state government’s efforts relative to digital signatures
and how AzDOT compares.
5. Document the legal veracity of digital signatures and retention requirements.
6. Clearer direction on the path AzDOT should be taking with digital signature
technology.
7
Candidate Transactions Identified
Each stakeholder was asked to identify potential transactions that might be candidates for
digital signature technology. Nearly all stakeholders mentioned the first three transactions
listed below. Some have only internal impacts, though a few that also have external
impacts.
Candidate transactions: Impact:
1. Engineering documents / Plan drawings Internal / External Vendors
2. AzDOT employee system access requests Internal impact only
3. Employee timesheets Internal impact only
4. Interaction with law enforcement ( DMV) Internal and external impact
5. Project files Internal impact only
6. Training requests Internal impact only
7. Motor vehicle registrations customers Internal and external
Potential Benefits of Digital Signature Technology from the
Stakeholder’s Perspective
The stakeholders interviewed said they supported the idea of implementing some form of
digital signature technology. A number of potential benefits were mentioned; however,
these benefits have not been quantified or proven. The engineering team articulated a
strong potential business case and is quantifying the possible savings. At this point, based
on these interviewee comments, the possible, but as yet unproven, benefits include the
following:
• Process flow improvements for documents requiring multiple “ approvals”
• Speeding of the approval process
• Reduced costs
• Data storage improvements
• Improved disaster recovery over paper archiving
• Improved retrieval process
• Alignment with Arizona and Federal E- Sign and electronic signature directives
• Improved readiness for new legislation
The business case for digital signature technology for Engineering:
The most compelling business case was made by the Engineering team. Although it has
not quantified the benefits yet, it is in the process of putting the analysis together. The
primary benefits mentioned were:
• Reduction in printing and paper costs associated with designs/ drawings for large-scale
projects. Because the Engineering Technology Group uses highly specialized,
large- sheet printers, the cost savings could be substantial,
• Improved data storage and retrieval processing,
• Reduction in legal risks associated with misplacing signed documents in paper
archives,
• Reduced cost through more efficient electronic workflow for plan drawing
processing.
8
Stakeholder Concerns about Digital Signature Technology
Table 3 – Summary of Stakeholders’ Concerns
Concerns Commentary
Solution must be end- to- end The stakeholders understand that implementing digital
signatures means much more than just the technology
behind digital certificates. The solution must have a
complete and well- documented workflow and robust
change management/ training process.
Avoid implementing in a silo The stakeholders recognized the changes required to
successfully implement digital signatures go well beyond
the direct control and purview of IT.
Impact of pending legislation New legislation was enacted by the state legislature that
will mandate electronic processing of transactions such as
vehicle registration. The stakeholders are very concerned
about the readiness for this change and the aggressive
dates requireded in the legislation.
9
Review of Existing Literature
The second task of the Arizona Department of Transportation Digital Signature
Feasibility Study required the researchers to review existing literature on the topic of
digital signatures. The review included documentation from many different sources:
• Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and policy documents,
• Federal statutes, policies, and white papers,
• Independent research compiled from documented case studies, vendor products,
and other sources,
• Existing SPR- 534 project archives.
The information from these sources was used to create this document.
Documents Reviewed During Feasibility Research
State of Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policy
Table 4 – Arizona Statutes, Administrative Codes, and Policies
Document Summary
A. R. S. 41- 132 – Electronic and digital
signatures: exemptions; definitions
Provides that electronic signatures have the same
force as a written signature.
A. R. S. 41- 1351 – Determination of
Value; Disposition
Assigns responsibility for setting document
retention rules to the Arizona State Library,
Archives, and Public Records.
A. R. S. 44- 7001 – Arizona Electronic
Transactions Act
Recognizes that a record or signature in electronic
form cannot be denied legal effect and
enforceability solely because the record or
signature is in electronic form
A. R. S. 44- 7012 – Electronic records
retention; originals
If the law requires that a record be retained, the
requirement is satisfied by retaining an electronic
record of the information in the record.
A. R. S. 41- 121 Duties of the Secretary of
State
Provides authority to the Secretary of State to
establish policies and procedures for the use of
electronic and digital signatures by all state
agencies, boards, and commissions.
Session Laws, Forty- eighth Legislature,
Second Regular Session, 2008, Chapter
177: Vehicle title; registration;
electronic signatures
Legislation passed in 2008 relating to electronic
vehicle title and registration
Arizona Administrative Codes: Chapter
12. Office of the Secretary of State,
Article 5. Electronic Signatures
Establishes specific requirements for and
definitions of electronic signature technology and
the role the Secretary of State’s office has for
approving all technologies relating to electronic
signatures.
10
Document Summary
Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing
Policy for electronic signature use.
State of Arizona, Policy Authority,
Office of the Secretary of State.
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
April 2002
Overview of Electronic Signing Policy intended
for use by State of Arizona agencies, boards, and
commissions and their electronic signing
partners. Policy outlines business process scope,
technical requirements, technical security
controls, and establishes levels of trust.
Policy Authority Procedure for the
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
September, 1999
The Policy Authority is responsible for defining
and managing the Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI). The AESI consists of all
of the State of Arizona’s collections of electronic
signing mechanisms and the entities and tools that
enable the valid use of these forms of signatures.
Policy Authority Procedures for the
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
April 25, 2002
Policy update that provides requirements for PKI,
PGP, and other elements of Signature Dynamics
Electronic Signing Policy.
Arizona State Library, Archives, and
Public Records
General Records Retention Schedule for
All State Agencies – Schedule Number
000- 07- 41
July 3, 2007
Pursuant to ARS 41- 1351, document contains
both the minimum and maximum time records
may be kept by Arizona agencies.
Records Retention and Disposition for
Arizona State Agencies
Arizona State Library, Archives, and
Public Records Management Division;
March, 2002
Discusses the life cycle of records and outlines
retention rules for all different types of state
transactions and documents.
11
Federal Government – E- Sign Documentation
Table 5: Federal Government E- Sign Documents
Document Summary
NECCC E- Sign – An introduction to E-Sign
Interoperability Workgroup and
State Electronic Records and Signatures
Reciprocity and Inter- operability Issues.
December 2001
This work group established guidelines used by
the Federal and state governments to define the
essential requirements for a formally formed
electronic record and signature. Established rules
that helped guarantee that a signed document has
legal effect, both for sender and receiver, within
each state and beyond its borders.
Framework for Electronic Signature
Reciprocity ( part of E- Sign)
E- Sign Interoperability Work Group –
White Paper
December 2001
Provides objective criteria for determining levels
of trust in electronic signatures and e- records.
Record Retention Analysis Under E-Sign
National Electronic Commerce
Coordinating Council – White Paper
December, 2001
E- Sign established on June 30, 2000, when
President Clinton signed the Electronic Signa-tures
in Global and National Commerce Act.
This white paper allows state regulatory agencies
to set performance standards for electronic
records that law, rules, or regulations require
private entities to retain. It was written to explain
E- Sign’s impact on the authority of states to
require that private parties retain written records
of certain transactions.
Electronic Records Management
Guidelines for State Governments. ( Part
of E- Sign)
Ensuring the Security, Authenticity,
Integrity, and Accessibility of Electronic
Records. National Electronic Commerce
Coordinating Council – White Paper
December 2001
Established practical guidelines to help agencies
develop effective electronic records management
procedures. The guidelines provide a general
direction on how state government agencies can
ensure the authenticity, integrity, security, and
accessibility of electronic records.
Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing
Policy for electronic signature use. ( Part
of E- Sign)
State of Arizona, Policy Authority,
Office of the Secretary of State.
Arizona Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI)
April 2002
Overview of Electronic Signing Policy intended
for use by State of Arizona agencies, boards, and
commissions and their electronic signing
partners. Policy outlines specifics including
business process scope, technical requirements,
technical security controls; and establishes levels
of trust.
12
Document Summary
Impact of Electronic Signatures on
Security Practices for Electronic
Documents ( Part of E- Sign)
A National Electronic Commerce
Coordinating Council White Paper;
December 2001
Discusses the challenges of maintaining public
records integrity under E- Sign and UETA. It
introduces a document classification scheme, a
best practice state governments can adopt, and
helps them face the security challenges of E- Sign.
Independent Research – Vendor White Papers, Case Studies, and
Miscellaneous Research
Table 6: White Papers and Case Studies
Document Summary
VeriSign Adobe Certified Document
Services –
Enterprise signing – enterprise true
credentials Adobe Acrobat from
VeriSign product materials
No date included
Overview of VeriSign document services and
digital signature solutions/ tools.
Electronic Document Security: A Guide
to Certified Digital Signatures
VeriSign; White Paper
No date included
Included an overview of digital signature
technology ( including PKI), legal issues, Adobe
products, and several case studies ( Penn State
Univ., Orexigen Theraputics, Inc).
4 Point Solutions Product Overview
No date included
Overview of 4 Point Consulting offerings with
Adobe. This consulting company is being used
by the IDE group for their current Digital
Signature Pilot.
“ KDOT Shifts Into High Gear”
Silanis Technologies
No date included
Case study of the Kansas DOT adoption of
electronic forms, workflow, document
management, and electronic signatures
“ Kentucky’s Department of Natural
Resources”
Silanis Technologies
No date included
The Department’s move towards a paperless
environment. Completing the circle of
information for real- time, status update on mining
projects.
ARX – Algorithmic Research
White Paper on the CoSign Digital
Signature Technology solution
No date included
Overview of business benefits, features, legal
compliance, and technical requirements of digital
signatures. Discusses the use of Portable
Document Format ( PDF) and Acrobat.
13
Document Summary
American Bar Association – Digital
Signature Guidelines Tutorial
No Date Included
An overview published by the ABA on digital
signature technology, the law, and the challenges
associated with implementing this technology.
“ Digital Signature Guidelines”
American Bar Association
August 1, 1996
An early set of guidelines and the law covering
the use of digital signature technology.
Oregon Department of Transportation –
Digital Signatures for Engineering
Documents
June 25, 2007
Outlines issues relating to the utilization of digital
signatures on engineering related documents with
the Oregon Department of Transportation.
“ Public Key Infrastructure Q& A”
Gartner Group Report
November 13, 2002
Public key infrastructure security has failed to
achieve widespread adoption, mostly because
enterprises rarely need all of its benefits.
“ Time’s Running Out to Prove the
Value of Government PKI”
Gartner Group Report
October 27, 2004
Discusses the difficulties many Federal and state
agencies have encountered when attempting to
implement PKI technology.
“ Apply the Lessons of Public- Key
Infrastructure ( PKI) to Protecting
Customer Information”
Gartner Group Report
March 25, 2005
The basic concepts underlying PKI are applicable
to most challenges encountered in protecting
customer information.
“ Management Update: Apply the
Lessons of Public- Key Infrastructure to
Protecting Customer Information”
Gartner Group Report
April 6, 2005
How PKI concepts can be applied to protect
customer information.
14
Review of Previous AzDOT Digital Signature Technology Research
Table 7: Previous AzDOT Research
Document Summary
Project Investment Justification – SPR-
534 Digital Signatures
Written by: David Moy, ITG, AzDOT
Multiple versions: 11/ 30/ 2004,
3/ 272002
Developed by AzDOT ITG to justify a pilot
implementation of PKI technology.
AzDOT Information Technology Group
– SPR 534: Digital Signature
Feasibility Study
May 18, 2004
A partial report summarizing the results of a
previous feasibility study effort in 2004.
AzDOT Uses for Digital Signatures –
Phase 1: Pre- pilot Report 534
March, 2002
Report outlines the impact that digital signatures
and electronic forms can have on AzDOT.
Emphasizes the importance placed on AzDOT
becoming its own Certificate Authority and
managing the entire system internally.
Digital Signature Definition – What is PKI?
Two documents that are included in the project archives for SPR 534 – Digital Signatures
Project provide an excellent definition and overview of Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI):
• Oregon Department of Transportation. Digital Signatures for Engineering
Documents. June 2007.
• Arizona Department of Transportation. SPR 534: Digital Signatures – Feasibility
Study. May 2004.
A summary ( with edits) of the definitions these documents provide is as follows:
Traditional hand written, or “ wet,” signatures on physical documents worked well during
the era of hand written/ drawn documents. A wet signature’s purpose is not to prove
identity, but rather to show agreement or consent. We” signatures are not always binding
unless witnessed. The tasks for creating drawings and documents have been moved to
computers to increase productivity and accuracy in nearly all facets of business within
AzDOT. Electronic documents are routinely transmitted in bidding processes and
amongst internal units. Management, storage, and retrieval of these documents with wet
signatures have become increasingly problematic. Signed documents that are physically
stored require a great deal of space and are often difficult to track and recall. Documents
that are signed and scanned and then stored again electronically lose the original
document electronic format; scanning is also a time consuming process. Digital
Signatures can be used to speed workflow, support repudiation processes and can
significantly help support sound document management practices.
15
In the simplest usage of digital signatures, a user will sign an electronic document with
his/ her digital signature and then send the document to another person. The second per-son
can electronically verify that the digital signature is valid and that the document has
not been modified after it was signed. The second person will use digital keys, signatures,
and time stamps to enable “ authentication” of electronic documents and assurance of the
identity of the signature. The tools needed by both people in this process are provided by
a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system and a trusted third- party certification authority.
• A PKI system creates and manages digital certificates. It is used to grant, renew, and
revoke digital certificates for end- users.
• A PKI system can be used to manage both public and private keys.
• There are a number of standards for PKI messages; Arizona requires that PKI
systems comply with ANSI x. 509 and x. 500 standards.
• In order to verify a signature, the verifier must have access to the signer’s public key
and have assurance that it corresponds to the signer’s private key ( which is always
kept private). A trusted third party Certification Authority provides this service.
The main components of a Public Key Infrastructure ( PKI) system include: digital
signatures, public- key cryptography, certificate authorities, and enabling services.
Public- key cryptography is the heart of a PKI system. It is a mathematical capability used
to encrypt ( secure) and decrypt ( validate) using public and private keys. Digital
Signatures are specially designed with public- key cryptology so that they can provide:
1. Authentication: the ability to verify the identity of a user or an organization.
2. Integrity: protection against unauthorized modification or substitution of
information in a document, transaction or other type of message.
3. Privacy: security against eavesdropping or interception of private data.
4. Non- repudiation: absolute certainty that a specific digital certificate was used to
sign a document, transaction or other type of message.
Using the capabilities of digital certificates, PKI systems can be used in many facets of
electronic services, including ( but not limited to):
1. Digital Certificates that can be used to electronically sign or authorize contracts,
purchase orders, engineering documents, documents, and critical e- mail.
2. Logon and Single Sign- on ( SSO) that enable users to maintain a user id and
password which grants them a right to use system resources and access data.
3. Electronic Commerce transactions that prove to the seller and the bank that the
purchaser is who he says he is to assure a proper funding authorization.
16
Digital Signatures cannot be deployed without a having a fully functional PKI System
that is capable of generating and maintaining digital certificates. With this technology in
place, AzDOT would be able to:
1. Electronically authenticate the identity of internal staff and external service
providers or consumers,
2. Protect the integrity of sensitive and confidential data,
3. Realize benefits of improved workflow ( less paper handling, improved
responsiveness, reduced research time),
4. Enforce non- repudiation issues that occur as a result of e- business transactions.
Digital Signature Implementation Approaches
There are three general approaches that AzDOT has explored and considered to
implement digital signature capabilities. These general solutions are: 1) a customized
internal solution, 2) an internally hosted packaged solution, and 3) an externally hosted
( or Application Service Provider- ASP) solution.
Customized Internal Solution
Florida created an internally customized PKI System and Certificate Authority. This has
been ruled out as an option for AzDOT due to the degree of scientific complexity, the staff
resources that would be required, probable delays and integration with other queued pro-jects,
and the need to form a management department to support signature authentication.
Internally Hosted – Packaged Solution
In this approach, AzDOT would select a vendor- packaged PKI System and implement it
on servers within the state government’s computing infrastructure. Over a period of time,
and as need arises, existing applications would be modified to use the PKI System
services. A third- party vendor would be selected to act as a “ trusted certificate authority”
to validate signatures.
This solution is viewed as being the best because it has the benefit of leveraging existing
market functionality and expertise with minimal impact to AzDOT resources and
projects. Integration could begin with the highest priority needs as soon as the hardware
and software were in place and the support staff could be trained. AzDOT would be
positioned to manage ongoing maintenance releases directly and could coordinate with
other applications maintenance and release opportunity windows.
Externally Hosted Solution
Application Service Providers, ( ASPs) offer software hosted on their hardware. Clients,
in this case AzDOT, would link to the ASP over telecommunications circuits to perform
PKI system management functions. Although an ASP solution would create an
opportunity to immediately begin issuing digital certificates, the solution is not viewed as
being plausible.
17
Hosting confidential data such as public and private keys offsite is a significant security
risk. Creating extensive dependence on an outside provider is viewed as being prob-lematic
to manage as the services would be required to be placed for bid periodically,
thus potentially creating unnecessary work to train, convert, and transition staff as well as
systems testing and integration activities to use other providers. Finally, this approach
would make ongoing integration with internal systems more difficult and expensive.
Commonly Cited Benefits of an End- to- End Digital Signature Process
Table 8: Commonly Cited Benefits of Digital Signatures
Benefit Description
Reduction in printing costs Documents available to sign electronically and
easily re- distributed without need to reprint.
Especially important for the AzDOT Engineering
group where specialty paper/ printing is used. In
addition, there are high volumes of printing during
the bid process.
Reduction in administrative costs Reduction in costs associated with copying, filing,
and faxing documents. Reduction in time spent
tracking down approvals.
Elimination of scanning expenses Many companies/ agencies use internal staff and/ or
third- party outsourcing to convert paper documents
into scanned images.
Streamlined processes by
automating routing of approvals
Significant cost reduction and improved
turnaround times for approvals. Case studies
showed average reduction of 60 percent- 80 percent
in the turnaround time required to get documents
approved, when completed electronically versus by
mail.
Improved disaster recovery Unlike paper archives, if set up properly, electronic
documents can easily be accounted for in disaster
recovery plans.
Improved security For even the most secure transactions ( Federal
government top secret ratings) PKI technology has
been proven to be more secure than any previous
technology.
Expand access to valid users;
restrict access for users that do not
have authority
Because information is available electronically and
users can be authenticated using digital signature
technology, simpler and more secure access can be
granted.
Repudiation “ Wet” signatures are not reputable unless
witnessed. Digital signatures are completely
binding.
18
Digital Signatures – Part of an End­to­End
Document Life Cycle
Much has been written about the underlying technology involved in digital signatures.
Often, too much emphasis is placed on the technology itself and not enough on how
digital signatures fit within the larger end- to- end view of the document life cycle. Even
the partially implemented ITG PKI solution focused primarily on the digital certificate
technology with minor, if any, focus on how the technology should be integrated into an
end- to- end workflow.
The following processes must be considered within the scope of an end- to- end digital
signature process:
1. Electronic Forms Library: Creating a central place where customers can access
online forms optimized by an end- to- end solution. Usually developed as part of
an intranet portal used by the department.
2. Workflow Management / Electronic Approvals: Implementing a workflow tool to
manage electronic approval flows. This form of workflow tool may or may not
include PKI technology. Most implementations do not according to the cases we
reviewed.
3. Document Imaging: The process of converting paper forms for electronic storage
is an important aspect of any solution.
4. Document Management: How documents are stored and managed once approve-ed.
This includes the establishment of retention rules for each document type.
5. Document Archiving and Retrieval: The process used to quickly access
documents. Must have robust search capabilities along with a proper level of
security to ensure that only authorized users can access the archived documents.
19
Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges
Table 9: Commonly Cited Implementation Challenges
Limited Participation Need to include all affected departments early in the
project including:
• IT ( Infrastructure & application )
• Business Process Owners: those individuals
knowledgeable about the process being automated
• Security / Risk Management
• Management
• Legal
• Training
Poor Deployment Planning Not communicating with affected groups, not
implementing the necessary training, and not gaining
customer input on high- value processes to automate.
Lack of post- implementation support.
Lack of Formal Training /
Change Management
Planning
Many implementations suffer due to lack of a thorough
training plan.
Requirements Not Well
Documented
Not getting the end- to- end process chain ready. Each
process and electronic document needs to be thoroughly
analyzed.
Not Recognizing Long- Term
Rollout Approach
Moving to a digital signature process is a long- term
transformation, often requiring years to fully realize the
benefits. Even in the most well- documented case study,
that of the Kansas DOT, it has taken 5+ years to
implement digital signatures, with investments likely in
the millions of dollars.
High Costs / Complicated
Integration
Cost of implementing digital signatures goes beyond the
initial investment in technology infrastructure and digital
signature software technology. It involves investments
in creating form libraries, improving imaging
capabilities, developing new document management
solutions, etc.
Poor User Adoption Rates Customers may not understand the new processes, or
were not consulted about what transactions/ processes
should be automated to benefit them the most. It is also
very important that the solution developers balance
security with ease of use. Too much security at the
expense of ease of use leads to poor adoption rates.
Management Pitfalls Lack of executive sponsorship necessary to set the pro-ject
as multi- year and high priority. Not securing buy- in
from business, no or late customer involvement ( this
cannot be an “ IT only” project), and not setting proper
expectations about the long- term nature of this project.
20
21
Prior to implementing a digital signature technology solution, it is important to
understand the legal consequences of using this method of conducting business. The
following section looks at several aspects of the digital signature process:
1. What is Arizona law regarding the use of electronic/ digital signatures?
2. What is the veracity of electronic signatures?
3. What are the specific retention requirements for electronic documents?
What is Arizona law regarding the use of digital and electronic
signatures?
Brief Answer
Arizona law sets forth specific requirements for electronic signatures that are used to
“ sign” documents filed with or by a state agency. Arizona law also sets forth very
specific requirements for documents that are “ signed” by a digital signature, a type of
electronic signature. Second, the Arizona Electronic Transactions Act further
demonstrates the concern of the legislature with the veracity of electronic signatures in
transactions relating to the conduct of business, commercial or governmental affairs.
Finally, there has been only one challenge to electronic signatures in Arizona, and it was
unsuccessful.
Discussion
I. State Agencies – A. R. S. § 41- 132
Arizona law provides that an electronic signature “ may be used to sign as writing on a
document that is filed with or by a state agency, board, or commission, and the electronic
signature has the same force and effect as a written signature” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( A)).
An electronic signature is “ an electronic or digital method of identification that is
executed or adopted by a person with the intent to be bound by or to authenticate a
record” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 4)).
An electronic signature has to be ( 1) unique to the person using it, ( 2) capable of reliable
verification, and ( 3) linked to a record in a manner so that if the record is changed the
electronic signature is invalidated ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( B)).
A document that has an electronic signature that is a digital signature has to comply with
additional specific requirements.
A digital signature is a “ type of electronic signature that transforms a message through
the use of an asymmetric cryptosystem” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 3)).
Digital Signature Technology Legal Review
22
An asymmetric cryptosystem is defined as “ an algorithm or series of algorithms that
provide a secure key pair for a digital signature” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E) ( 1)).
The requirements of a document containing a digital signature are:
( a) The document must contain a computer- based certificate that
( 1) identifies the issuing entity and the subscriber ( the subscriber lawfully holds
the private key that corresponds to the public key listed in the certificate and
accepts the certificate),
( 2) contains the subscriber’s public key, and
( 3) is digitally signed by the issuing entity.
( i) An issuing entity is “ a person who creates and issues a certificate and
notifies the subscriber listed in the certificate of the contents of the
certificate” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E)( 5)).
( b) The document must contain a key pair used for verifying a digital signature that
has a unique property so that the public key can verify the digital signature that the
private key creates.
( i) A key pair is “ a private key and its corresponding public key in an asymmetric
cryptosystem.” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E)( 6)).
( c) The document must be capable of verification by the person having the initial
message and the signer’s public key, meaning that
( 1) the person can accurately determine whether the transformation of the
message was created by using the private key that corresponds to the signer’s
key and
( 2) the person can accurately determine whether the initial message has been
altered since the transformation was made.
( i) Transform means to “ subject data in a message to a mathematical change
by electronic means” ( A. R. S. § 41- 132( E)( 12)).
The legislative history of A. R. S. § 41- 132 shows that the statute was intended to define
the necessary terms regarding electronic signatures to allow the Arizona Secretary of
State to adopt rules regarding electronic signatures.
II. Arizona Electronic Transactions Act – A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the
“ AETA”)
Arizona law recognizes that a record or signature in electronic form cannot be denied
legal effect and enforceability solely because the record or signature is in electronic form
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( A)). Arizona law further recognizes that a contract formed by an
electronic record cannot be denied legal effect and enforceability solely because an
electronic record was used in its formation ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( B)). Arizona law also
provides that an electronic record satisfies any law that requires a record to be in writing
( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( C)). Finally, Arizona law provides that an electronic signature
satisfies any law that requires a signature ( A. R. S. § 44- 7007( D)).
23
The AETA defines a secure electronic signature as one that is ( 1) unique to the person
using it, ( 2) is capable of verification, ( 3) is under the sole control of the person using it,
and ( 4) is linked to the electronic record so that, if the record is changed, the electronic
signature is invalidated ( A. R. S. § 44- 7031).
The legislative history of the AETA shows that it is modeled after the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act ( UETA) and was meant to address concerns regarding the incompatible
laws between states and the use of electronic signatures by private parties in business
transactions. The AETA applies to parties that elect to conduct electronic transactions or
to form electronic contracts using electronic signatures.
III. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Arizona
Case law on challenges to the veracity of electronic signatures in Arizona is virtually
non- existent. One recent case has upheld the veracity of electronic signatures in the
judicial arena. In that case, plaintiffs challenged the validity of two electronic signatures
by the superior court judge on two separate judgments. Haywood Sec., Inc. v. Ehrlich,
214 Ariz. 114, 115, ¶ 3, 149 P. 3d 738, 739 ( 2007). Plaintiffs argued that the electronic
signatures on the judgments did not satisfy the “ signed” requirement of Rule 58( a),
Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that all judgments be in writing and
signed by the judge. Id. at ¶ 2. The Arizona Supreme Court, sitting en banc, held that
the judge’s electronic signature on the judgments “ clearly demonstrated his intent to
authenticate both documents, and [ he] therefore ‘ signed’ them for purposes of Rule
58( a).” Id. at 117, ¶ 15, 149 P. 3d at 741. The Court went on to state that its holding
comports with the AETA’s “ general policy of recognizing and facilitating transactions
using electronic signatures.” Id. at 117, n. 2, 149 P. 3d at 741.
There have been no legal challenges to A. R. S. § 41- 132.
IV. Challenges to Electronic Signatures in Other Jurisdictions
It appears that many states have also adopted the UETA or some version of the UETA.
There is limited case law in other jurisdictions discussing the veracity of electronic
signatures.
Electronic signatures have been held to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. In one case, the
parties had entered into an agreement regarding the sale of goods through a series of e-mails.
Int’l Casings Group, Inc. v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 2d 863,
865 ( W. D. Mo. 2005). The seller, in an attempt to back out of the contract, argued that
the Statute of Frauds prevented enforcement of the contract for the sale of goods because
the contract was not in writing and was not signed. Id. at 872. The United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri held, citing to Missouri law that had adopted
the UETA, that even though the parties’ signatures were electronic, it satisfied the Statute
of Frauds as long as there was an intention to authenticate the documents. Id. at 873.
The Court noted that its finding that an electronic signature in an email satisfied the
Statute of Frauds is supported by developing case law. Id. at 874.
24
Just because an electronic signature has the same effect by law as a hand- written
signature does not preclude a person from arguing that he did not authorize the electronic
signature. In one case, the appellant argued that the bankruptcy court incorrectly
disregarded a document filed by the appellee with the Securities and Exchange
Commission that bore an electronic signature. Piranha, Inc. v. Piranha, Inc., 297 B. R.
78, 81 ( N. D. Tex. 2003) The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas held that Delaware law, that had adopted the UETA, did not advocate the
enforcement of electronic signatures that were neither executed, adopted, nor authorized.
Id. at 82. Citing a section of the UETA that provides that an “ electronic signature is
attributable to a person if it was the act of the person,” the Court held that UETA does not
preclude a person from contesting that he executed, adopted, or authorized an electronic
signature that is purportedly his.
Document Retention Guidelines
What are the policies governing the retention of electronic
documents?
The legality of an electronically signed record requires that it “ remains accessible to all
persons who are entitled to access by statue, regulation, or rule of law, for the period
required by such statute, regulation, or rule of law, in a form that is capable of being
accurately reproduced for later reference, whether by transmission, printing or
otherwise.” 1
According to State and Federal guidelines, documents digitally or electronically signed
are generally held to follow the same retention requirements as paper documents.
“ Government’s record retention, whether paper or electronic, is intended to give
evidence of some action. E- sign policy establishes that record retention
requirements of electronic records created by electronic signatures are not different
than retention requirements for paper records.” 2
However, Section 101 ( d) ( 1) of the E- Sign Act further qualifies this general rule. It
provides that where a statute, regulation, or rule of law requires that a contract or record
in a transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce be retained, an electronic
record only meets the statutory requirement if:
1. The record is accurate,
2. The record is accessible in a form that can be accurately reproduced; and
3. The record is accessible to all persons entitled to review the record.
1 Federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, Section 101. ( d)( 1)( B) ( E- Sign- Interstate and
international commerce)
2 National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council ( NECCC) “ Impact of Electronic Signatures on Security
Practices for Electronic Documents.” ( December, 2001)
25
Guidelines Established by the NECCC E- Sign Workgroup
Just as with paper records, the e- records a government agency produces or receives are
not all of equal importance or value. Although all government records should be
maintained properly, the effort and resources a state agency expends to manage and
maintain records, including e- records, should be related to the records’ value to the
agency and the citizens it services. The concept of risk management may be useful. Risk
management requires an analysis of risks relative to potential benefits, consideration of
alternative measures to address risks, and implementation of the measures that best
address the risk based on this analysis. In applying risk management to e- records, the
following questions should be asked:
1. What would the impact on agency operations be if the records were lost or
otherwise unavailable?
2. Would the agency or others suffer a financial loss if the records were unavailable?
3. What is the likelihood that the records would be subject to or needed for a legal
action?
4. Would the inability to produce the records in a form admissible in court have a
critical impact on the outcome of a case?
5. Are the records required for an extended period of time?
6. Do the records have significant cultural or historical value?
Interestingly, the guidelines published by the NECCC focus more on the importance of
having reliable and accurate processes and procedures used to create, capture, and
maintain e- records than on the technology used. Having well established procedures is
critical to demonstrating their authenticity, integrity, and security. These factors are
much more important than the format or medium of e- records or the specific technology
used to create and maintain them. Government agencies should identify, specify, and
document these processes and procedures if they expect their e- records to be accepted in
legal and other proceedings.
State of Arizona Records Retention Policy
In Arizona, electronic records retention rules are established in A. R. S. § 44- 7012 and
A. R. S. § 41- 1351.
Summary of A. R. S. § 44- 7012
A. R. S. 44- 7012 establishes that:
A. If a law requires that a record be retained, the requirement is satisfied by retaining an
electronic record of the information in the record that:
1. Accurately reflects the information prescribed in the record after the record was
first generated in its final form as an electronic record or otherwise.
2. Remains accessible for later reference.
B. Subsection A does not apply to any information whose sole purpose is to enable the
record to be sent, communicated or received.
26
C. A person may satisfy subsection A by using the services of another person to satisfy
subsection A.
D. If a law requires a record to be presented or retained in its original form, or provides
consequences if the record is not presented or retained in its original form, that law is
satisfied by an electronic record retained according to subsection A.
E. A record retained as an electronic record pursuant to subsection A satisfies a law that
requires a person to retain a record for evidentiary, audit or like purposes, unless a
law that is enacted after the effective date of this chapter prohibits the use of an
electronic record for the specified purpose.
F. This section does not prohibit a governmental agency from adopting additional
requirements for the retention of a record that is subject to that agency's jurisdiction.
Summary of Signature Dynamics Electronic Signing Policy
Retention of digital signature documents is also addressed in the Signature Dynamics
Electronic Signing Policy for electronic signature usages created by the Policy Authority
of the Office of the Secretary of State ( April, 2002). The Electronic Signing Policy is
intended for use by State of Arizona agencies, boards, commissions, and their electronic
signing partners. It was created by the State of Arizona’s Electronic Signature
Infrastructure ( AESI) and is managed by Arizona’s Policy Authority.
In this policy document, under section 5.8.2 “ Retention period for Archive,” the signing
process information must be retained for the “ legal” life of the most enduring document
signed within the ESI. If that “ legal” life is unknown, then it must be kept for at least 30
years. Any signed documents may also have public records retention requirements that
must also be met.
Summary of A. R. S. § 41- 1351
A. R. S. 41- 1351 assigns responsibility for document retention rules to the Arizona State
Library, Archives, and Public Records:
“ Every public officer who has public records in the public officer's custody shall
consult periodically with the state library and the state library shall determine whether
the records in question are of legal, administrative, historical, or other value. Those
records determined to be of legal, administrative, historical, or other value shall be
preserved. Those records determined to be of no legal, administrative, historical, or
other value shall be disposed of by such method as the state library may specify. A
report of records destruction that includes a list of all records disposed of shall be
filed at least annually with the state library on a form prescribed by the state library.”
General Retention Schedule for State Agencies
Specific record retention rule schedules for Arizona state agencies are created and
periodically revised by the Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records. The
most recent revision is dated July 3, 2007 and contains specific guidelines state agencies
must follow for retaining documents related to all agency business functions.
27
Survey of Other States’ Departments of Transportation
The fourth task of the Arizona Department of Transportation Digital Signature Feasibility
Study required the researchers to survey other states’ transportation departments to
determine how they are using digital signature technology. The survey started on April
17, 2008, and ended May 2, 2008.
Survey Objectives
1. Understand other states’ transportation departments’ use of digital signatures and
plans to implement the technology in the future.
2. Determine which methods have been used to implement digital signature
technology. Identify which software vendors were used and overall satisfaction
with those vendors.
3. Understand how well transportation departments have achieved the benefits
associated with their digital signature technology implementations ( expectations,
benefits, implementation challenges).
Jan Edwards, of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
( AASHTO), provided a list of senior level and CIO contacts for every state department of
transportation. A survey was developed by the researchers and approved by the study
TAC on April 15, 2008 ( See Appendix). The questions were converted into an
electronic, web- based survey tool. A cover letter was created by AzDOT CIO Joe
Throckmorton introducing the survey and asking for help completing it.
The survey was distributed to the transportation departments of 47 states and the District
of Columbia. The only states not receiving a survey were Arizona, Ohio, and New York
( no DOT contacts were available for Ohio and New York). The survey completion rate
was high. In total, the researchers received responses from 36 states ( 75 percent response
rate). Of the 36 responses, 33 included full contact information and three were
submitted anonymously. A contact list is provided in Appendix 1.
Survey Results and Findings
Objective 1: Understand use of digital signatures by other states’ transportation
departments and their plans to implement the technology.
Summary of Findings
The use of digital signature technology is gaining traction with other states’ DOTs. More
than half the respondents have already implemented the technology ( 55.6 percent). Of
those that have not, over two- thirds ( 70.5 percent) expect to do so within the next two to
three years. Less than a third said they do not see the technology being adopted in the
foreseeable future.
For the states not using the technology ( 44.4 percent of the respondents), the two most
commonly cited reasons for not implementing the technology were that the technology
28
was not considered a priority ( 50 percent) and that the technology faced legal and
regulatory barriers ( 22 percent).
Digital signature technology is most commonly used to support internal processes ( 47
percent). This is followed by engineering design and bidding process ( 26 percent),
customer- based processes ( 19 percent), and other procurement ( 13 percent).
Key Results:
Table 10: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 1
Question Response
Percent
Has your organization implemented any form of digital signature
technology?
YES
NO
55.6%
44.4%
Briefly explain why you have not implemented digital signature
technology.
Not a business priority
Regulatory/ Legal issues
Other Reasons
50%
22%
28%
When do you believe your organization will implement some form of
digital signature technology?
Within the next year
Within the next 2- 3 years
Not for the foreseeable future
41.1%
70.5%
29.4%
Please select how you are using digital signature technology ( select all
that apply)
Customer- based ( license renewals, vehicle registration, etc.)
Procurement
Engineering & Engineering Bids
Internal Processes ( timesheets, system access requests)
15.8%
13%
26.3%
47.4%
What issues did you have getting your engineers to move to digital
signatures?
Legal/ Raised Seal issues
No resistance
Technical issues
50%
33%
17%
29
Objective 2: Determine which methods have been used to implement digital
signature technology. Identify which software vendors were used and overall
satisfaction with those vendors.
Summary of Findings
Those states that have already implemented digital signature technology have
overwhelmingly selected using third- party software over building customized solutions
internally ( 88.9 percent use third- party software; only 11 percent have built an internal
solution). Of the states that have used third- party software, 62.5 percent have purchased
software and integrated it into their existing infrastructure ( internally hosted) and 37.5
percent have purchased software and have it completely hosted externally.
There was little consistency in the vendors used to implement digital signature
technology. There were 10 different vendors named out of a total of 16 responses. Bid
Express and VeriSign were named by 20 percent and Silanis was named by 13 percent of
the respondents. The respondents are very happy with their vendor selection. Nearly 94
percent of those bought from a vendor said they would recommend the vendor they used.
Only one of the 16 respondents would not recommend her current vendor.
Key Results:
Table 11: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 2
Question Response
Percent
Please select the method used to implement your digital signature
technology.
Internal customized solution
Purchased third- party software/ internally hosted
Purchased third- party software/ externally hosted
11.1%
44.4%
33.3%
What third- party provider are you using?
Bid Express
VeriSign
Silanis
Other
Other vendors named: Lotus Notes, SoftTech, IBM, ViiSAGE, Entrust,
UserTrust, InfoTech
20%
20%
13%
47%
Would you recommend this vendor?
YES
NO
93.8%
6.3%
30
The following lists the vendors used by each state and whether the respondent
recommended them.
Vendor: Recommend? State:
Bid Express Yes IN
Bid Express Yes MN
Bid Express Yes AL
Entrust Digital Certificates/ Yes IL
hosted by the Illinois Central
Management Services.
IBM/ FileNet Yes NJ
InfoTech Yes MI
Lotus Notes Yes MO
Silanis Yes ND
Silanis Yes LA
Silanis ( workflow) Yes MN
Softech Yes NM
UserTrust/ Comodo No UT
Verisign Yes TX
Verisign Yes TN
Verisign Yes KS
ViiSAGE Yes WI
Objective 3: Understand how well departments of transportation have achieved the
benefits associated with their digital signature technology implementations
( expectations, benefits, implementation challenges).
Summary of Findings
The majority of states that have implemented some form of digital signature technology
report their programs have met or exceeded their expectations ( 72 percent). Because
many states have recently implemented their programs, 28 percent reported it was too
early to tell. The states, however, are optimistic about their programs’ chances of
meeting or exceeding expectations. Not a single respondent believed his program
wouldn’t eventually meet expectations.
The most commonly cited benefit to implementing digital signature technology was
improved workflows and shorter times to obtain approvals on internal processes and
procurement bids ( named by 50 percent). Improved security/ authentication was cited as
a benefit by 23 percent and 23 percent said their primary benefit has been a reduction in
printing and copying costs.
Most states reported facing challenges during and after implementing their digital
signature technology programs. Gaining organizational buy- in was cited as the most
common challenge ( 33 percent). Overcoming technical challenges was cited by 29
percent of respondents. It should be noted that 20 percent of the respondents said they
31
faced no significant challenges. This is somewhat surprising given the complexity of the
technical integration and significant changes in business workflows associated with
digital signature technology.
Key Results
Table 12: State DOT Survey Results – Objective 3
Question Response
Percent
How would you describe the benefits / savings your project achieved?
Benefits exceeded expectations
Benefits have met expectations
Benefits will meet expectations, but haven’t yet
Benefits will not meet expectations
Too early to tell/ no analysis completed
11.1%
61.1%
11.1%
0%
16.7%
What benefits have you realized?
Improved workflow/ shorter approval times
Improved security/ authentication
Reduced printing
Meets legal requirement
50%
22.7%
22.7%
4.5%
What challenges did you encounter?
Gaining organizational buy- in
Overcoming technical challenges
No significant challenges
Legal Issues
Post- implementation support
33%
28.6%
19%
9.5%
9.5%
Survey Conclusion
The Arizona Department of Transportation ( AzDOT) has not yet implemented a true
digital signature technology program ( public/ private key digital certificates), but is
currently in the process of evaluating the feasibility of doing so. AzDOT is currently
using an approval workflow engine called Adobe LiveCycle to support “ eForms.” The
use of this product puts it on par with the majority of states who have implemented some
form of electronic approval workflow engine, but who have not implemented pure digital
signature technology. A number of states in the survey said they have adopted similar
workflow processes, but reported they are not leveraging actual digital signature
technology. It should be noted that respondents may have blurred the line between digital
signature technology and electronic approval and document management solutions.
Clearly, other DOTs have chosen to buy third- party vendor software over building
solutions themselves. This should provide AzDOT with a great opportunity to evaluate
32
vendor software options and obtain recommendations from other states about their
vendor’s performance and costs of externally hosting digital certificate processing. As
noted in the previous legal review section, there have been a limited number of legal
cases about the veracity of digital signatures. The more states that implement the
technology the stronger the workflow and legal standing of digital signature should
become.
In addition, AzDOT should be able to learn from other states’ experience in developing
future cost / benefit analysis, implementation strategies, and leveraging lessons
experienced by the other implementations. Based on the high response rate for the
survey and the fact that 33 states provided contact information for follow- up discussions,
AzDOT should be able to leverage its experiences to make its future program more
efficient.
The majority of respondents said their programs have performed at or are exceeding the
benefits they expected. The remaining states are optimistic about their programs’ future
performance. These implementations are clearly challenging so it should provide
AzDOT with some added confidence that an investment in this technology is worthwhile
and has the potential to provide important benefits.
Finally, AzDOT should consider the significant challenges faced by the other states. The
most commonly mentioned challenge was gaining organizational buy- in. This challenge
is larger than simply “ are you using digital signature technology ( e. g. digital
certificates)?” The challenge speaks more about the difficulty implementing an end- to-end
electronic workflow than it is about implementing true digital signature technology.
Clearly, an implementation must obtain buy- in from around the entire organization and
not be limited to being IT driven.
33
Advantages/ Disadvantages and Cost/ Benefit Profile
Section Summary
The fifth task of the Arizona Department of Transportation Digital Signature Feasibility
Study required the researchers to document the advantages and disadvantages and
cost/ benefit profiles for digital signature usage by the department. The TAC also
requested a profile of building an in- house digital signature solution versus leveraging a
third- party platform. The conclusions reached in this chapter are based on several sources
of information including the major findings of the previous sections of this feasibility
study ( AzDOT interviews, legal review, and findings from the survey of 32 other state
departments of transportation), several well documented case studies, and the
researchers’ personal experience in large- scale technical development.
Research Limitations
There were several limitations that must be noted:
• Interviews with AzDOT staff yielded only a limited set of potential candidate
transactions. Those transactions included: timesheets, system access requests,
training requests, travel request, and the processes involved in the Engineering
bidding and plan drawing process for which a proof- of- concept project is
currently in process.
The researchers learned that most of the internal transactions are already part of
AzDOT’s eForm initiative. The eForm initiative leverages electronic approval
workflow through the Adobe LiveCycle product. The transactions not already on
eForms are scheduled to be converted soon.
The conclusions reached in this section are based upon a review of the following
materials; each will be described in detail:
1. A review of the legal requirements of digital signature technology,
2. Survey results from 32 other state departments of transportation,
3. Case studies and white papers on the “ in- house development” vs. “ outsourcing”
of digital signature hosting ( digital certificate/ PKI hosting).
Legal Findings
According to A. R. S § 41- 132, Arizona law provides that an electronic signature “ may be
used to sign a writing on a document that is filed with or by a state agency, board or
commission and the electronic signature has the same force and effect as a written
34
signature.” It defines an electronic signature as “ an electronic or digital method of
identification that is executed or adopted by a person with the intent to be bound by or to
authenticate a record.” In order to be an electronic signature, it must meet the following
three conditions:
( 1) Be unique to the person using it,
( 2) Be capable of reliable verification,
( 3) Be linked to a record in a manner so that if the record is changed the electronic
signature is invalidated.
The above referenced portions of A. R. S. § 41- 132 were written to be technology neutral
and do not prescribe the particular technological approach.
According to the Arizona Electronic Transactions Act, A. R. S. § 44- 7001 et seq. ( the
AETA), Arizona law recognizes that a record or signature in electronic form cannot be
denied legal effect and enforceability solely because the record or signature is in
electronic form. Arizona law further recognizes that a contract formed by an electronic
record cannot be denied legal effect and enforceability solely because an electronic
record was used in its formation. Arizona law also provides that an electronic record
satisfies any law that requires a record to be in writing. Finally, Arizona law provides
that an electronic signature satisfies any law that requires a signature.
The AETA defines a secure electronic signature as one that is:
( 1) Unique to the person using it,
( 2) Capable of verification,
( 3) Under the sole control of the person using it,
( 4) Linked to the electronic record so that if the record is changed the electronic
signature is invalidated.
These statutes, and each of the requirements set forth for having a valid electronic
signature supports the idea that implementing a robust, well documented electronic
approval engine will suffice for most, if not all, of AzDOT’s previously identified
internal transactions without the use of actual PKI technology.
The same statute, A. R. S. § 41- 132, defines a digital signature as a “ type of electronic
signature that transforms a message through the use of an asymmetric cryptosystem.”
The requirements of a document containing a digital signature are:
( a) The document must contain a computer based certificate that ( 1) identifies the
issuing entity and the subscriber ( the subscriber lawfully holds the private key that
corresponds to the public key listed in the certificate and accepts the certificate),
( 2) contains the subscriber’s public key, and ( 3) is digitally signed by the issuing
entity.
The statute does not prescribe when an entity should apply formal digital signature
technology over an electronic signature.
35
A review of the State of Arizona, Policy Authority, Office of Secretary Electronic
Signing Policy ( April, 2002), ( http:// www. azsos. gov/ pa/ SigDynamicsCP) found
guidelines that agencies should consider. In section 2.1, agencies must “ determine what
level of trust ( basic, medium, and high) is appropriate for their needs. Applications
requiring higher assurance must incorporate a technology approved for those higher
levels of trust. This does not preclude using Signature Dynamic signing technologies in
circumstances requiring higher levels of trust. It merely requires additional technology to
provide the additional trust needed.”
Establishing trust levels is based on the potential risk involved and levels of security for
the highest risk type of transaction. There are three trust levels:
• Basic: There are risks and consequences of data compromise, but they are not
considered to be of major significance. This may include access to private
information where the likelihood of malicious access is not high. It is assumed at
this security level that users are not likely to be malicious.
• Medium: Risks and consequences of data compromise are moderate. This may
include transactions having substantial monetary value or risk of fraud, or
involving access to private information where the likelihood of malicious access
is substantial.
• High: Threats to data are high, or the consequences of the failure of security
services are high. This may include very high value transactions or high levels of
fraud risk.
The Electronic Signing Policy, section 2.4.8.1, ( http:// www. azsos. gov/ pa/ SigDynamicsCP),
addresses trust levels for:
1. Signer identification ( determining the signer is who he says he is),
2. Signer link to signature ( his intent to approve something),
3. Signature link to record integrity ( ensuring that once signed, a document cannot
be changed without invalidating the signature).
There is only a single reference to the use of PKI technology in the policy. Section
2.4.8.1.3 outlines methods for linking an electronic signature to the integrity of the signed
record.
“ There must be some method to ensure that the signature is linked to the record
content that the signer intended to sign in such a manner that any change to the
record since the record was signed is detectable and invalidates the signature.”
PKI usage is prescribed only when the high level of trust is warranted. It is our opinion
that the high level of trust is not reached for the majority of AzDOT internal forms;
however, this reference may be of particular importance to the current effort to develop
electronic approval processes for AzDOT Engineering.
36
Survey Results from 32 Other State Department of Transportation
Organizations
Most departments of transportation have overwhelmingly chosen to leverage a third- party
vendor for their PKI implementations over building an internally hosted solution ( 88.9
percent use third- party software; only 11 percent have built an internal solution).
The majority of states using some form of digital signature technology have implemented
third- party- approval workflow engines that are not necessarily leveraging true digital
signature technology ( e. g. not using PKI / Digital certificates). A strategy used by a
number of states has been to implement a third- party document management and
electronic approval workflow engine to make internal processes like timesheets, system
access requests, and some forms of procurement functions more efficient. Integrating
these approval engines with a recognized third- party digital certificate issuing authority
has been done only when state statutes specifically required the additional security and
for transactions classified with higher risk.
Case Study Review: In­House
Development Versus Outsourcing
Digital Certificate Technology
The following section considers the advantages and disadvantages of developing an
internal digital signature/ PKI infrastructure versus leveraging a third- party provider. It is
the researchers’ conclusion that leveraging the expertise and infrastructure of a third-party
solution would be the best choice for the Arizona Department of Transportation.
Cost Considerations
The estimates contained in this section apply only to the deployment of a digital signature
solution using digital certificates in a full PKI implementation. These estimates do not
include an electronic approval workflow engine or document management system.
AzDOT has already purchased Adobe’s LiveCycle workflow engine.
37
In- House Development of a Full PKI/ Digital Signature Solution
Table 13: High- Level Costs of In- House Development of a PKI Solution
Major Cost Factors
In- house
Development
Estimating Assumptions
Assumes deployment of
2,000 users
Development Resources:
The cost of IT Staff needed to
implement a PKI infrastructure
and integrate it into many
interfacing systems.
$ 156,600 ( one
time)
Assumes 4 FTEs ( 1)( 2)
( Security Analyst @$ 40/ hr, 3
Client/ Server Developers
@$ 35/ hr) for 6 months.
Calculation:
($ 40x1080hrs)+( 3,240hrs x
$ 35) = $ 156,600
AzDOT resource costs based
on PlanView Primary Role
Rates Document ( ITG)
Software Costs:
PKI software must be purchased to
run on internal servers and client
PCs.
$ 87,000 ( one
time)
$ 17,400 ( annual
maintenance)
Server based licenses( 1):
$ 27,000
Client license( 1): $ 60,000
($ 30/ client x 2000)
Total = $ 87,000
Maintenance( 1) = 20%/ Yr
New Hardware( 1):
PKI software typically must run on
a dedicated server. Given the size
of the AzDOT environment, a very
high end server is required. In
addition to a primary production
server, a secondary server for
backup is required. Backup server
may also be used for testing.
Finally, given the critical nature of
digital certificate management, a
disaster recovery (“ Hot Site”) is
highly recommended.
There will be requirements for
incremental telecommunications
equipment ( routers, firewalls, load
$ 37,000( 1)
( one time)
$ 7,400 ( annual
maintenance)
Production Server ( 4,500)
Backup Server ( 4,500)
Disaster Recovery Site
( 5,000)
Telecom equipment: ( 10,000)
Root- Key Mgmt Hardware
( 13,000)
Maintenance( 1) – 20% Yr
38
balancers, web servers, database
servers; security equipment
( access controls, monitoring), and
a highly secure root- key
management process ( hardened
token cabinets)
PKI Consulting Expertise ( 2)
Because PKI technology will be
new to ADOT IT Staff, it is very
likely a PKI expert( s) will be
required during the duration of the
project. Consultant would be for
workflow design as well as
technical development/ integration
work.
$ 175,000 ( one
time)
1400 hrs x $ 125/ hr =
$ 175,000 ( 2)
Ongoing Maintenance:
Annual FTE cost of maintaining
infrastructure and applications.
$ 109,200
( annual)
1.5 FTE ( Technical
Support)( 1)
2080 x 1.5 x $ 35/ hr =
$ 109,200
Assumes a client/ server
development resource.
Administration Costs:
Cost of establishing new users,
deleting, maintaining certificates
$ 78,000
( annual)
1.5 FTE ( 1)
2080 x 1.5 x $ 25/ hr
Assumes a Business Analyst
level resource
TOTALS
ONE TIME
ANNUAL
$ 455,600
$ 212,000
TOTAL 3- YEAR COST $ 1,091,600
455,600 x ($ 212,000 x 3) =
$ 1,091,600
( 1) VeriSign, Total Cost of Ownership for Public Key Infrastructure, White Paper;
http:// www. verisign. com/ authentication/ enterprise- authentication/ managed- pki/ index. html
( 2) Silanis, Build vs. Buy – What to Consider, Webinar; http:// www. silanis. com/ resource-center/
webcasts. html
( 3) Kansas Department of Transportation, 12/ 18/ 2006 Price Quotation Sheet
39
Integration of a Third- Party Digital Signature/ PKI Solution
Table 14: High- Level Costs of Third- Party PKI Solution
Major Cost Factors
Third Party Estimating Assumptions
Assumes deployment of
2,000 users
Annual Managed Service Fee:
Typically an annual fee based for
managing a PKI infrastructure at
third party ( e. g. Maintaining the
certificate)
$ 45,500 ( annual)
( 3)
User Licenses
Vendors typically assign a charge
for each certificate issued.
$ 32,000 ( annual)
( 3)
$ 16/ per license, per year x
2,000 potential users ( 3)
Initial Setup Fee:
Most third parties will charge a
one- time setup fee.
$ 18,000 ( one-time)
( 3)
Development Resources ( 1):
The cost of IT Staff needed to
implement a PKI infrastructure
and integrate it into many
interfacing systems.
$ 19,030 ( one-time)
Need internal staff for
integration work. Estimated
at 1- 2 resources for 60 days ( 1)
1.5 FTEs ( 1 Developer + .5
Security Analyst) for 60 days
( 346hrs x $ 35/ hr)+ ( 173Hrs x
$ 40/ hr) = $ 19,030
AzDOT FTE pricing based on
recent PlanView Primary
Role Rates for ITG Document
PKI Consulting Expertise ( 2):
Because PKI technology will be
new to ADOT IT Staff, it is very
likely a PKI expert( s) will be
required for the duration of the
project. The consultant would be
for workflow design as well as
technical development/ integration
work.
$ 64,875 ( one-time)
1.5 Consultants( 2) x 346 hrs x
$ 125/ hr = $ 64,875
Ongoing Maintenance:
Annual cost of maintaining
infrastructure and applications.
N/ A Typically included in Annual
Service Fee
40
Administration Costs:
Cost of establishing new users,
deleting, maintaining certificates
$ 78,000 ( annual) 1.5 FTE ( 1)
2080 x 1.5 x $ 25/ hr
Assumes a Business Analyst
level resource
TOTALS
ONE TIME
ANNUAL
$ 101,905
$ 155,500
TOTAL 3- YEAR COST
$ 558,405
101,905 x ($ 155,500 x 3) =
$ 558,405
( 1) VeriSign, Total Cost of Ownership for Public Key Infrastructure, White Paper;
http:// www. verisign. com/ authentication/ enterprise- authentication/ managed- pki/ index. html
( 2) Silanis, Build vs. Buy – What to Consider, Webinar; http:// www. silanis. com/ resource-center/
webcasts. html
( 3) Kansas Department of Transportation, 12/ 18/ 2006 Price Quotation Sheet
There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to in- sourcing development work versus
leveraging a third- party digital signature/ PKI vendor.
Advantages to leveraging a third- party solution:
Table 15: Advantages to Leveraging a Third- Party Solution
Faster Time to Market According to the existing case studies, the average
implementation for an in- house development project
is six months while a typical third- party
implementation is 30- 60 days.( 1)
Proven, Mature Solutions Leverages the experience the vendor has accumulated
during many similar implementations across a wide
variety of public and private organizations and
industries. ( 1)
Legal Opinions Building a customized solution may expose AzDOT
to legal and compliance challenges. Vendors
solutions have been audited, reviewed, and tested
legally. Vendors may even take some or all of the
liability when challenged. ( 1)
Audits Vendor security procedures and infrastructure are
constantly audited. Developing an internal solution
may increase AzDOT’s exposure to new audits of IT
infrastructure, processes, and security practices. ( 1)
Increased emphasis on research
and development and
maintaining industry/ legislative
awareness
Companies that specialize in digital signature services
are motivated to stay current on fraud and “ plug
holes.” They also remain current on new legislation
and adjust their products to remain competitive and
relevant in the market place. They may also invest in
research and development which would be difficult
for AzDOT to make similar investments to keep their
in- house development current.
( 1) Silanis, Build vs. Buy, Case Study
41
Disadvantages to leveraging a third- party solution:
Table 16: Disadvantages to Leveraging a Third- Party Solution
Being tied to a particular vendor AzDOT should consider the difficulty of changing
vendors; essentially, a vendor’s solution will become
embedded into the AzDOT infrastructure and
business process. Replacing that vendor will require
a significant cost in the re- bidding process,
integration, and change management/ training should
it eventually be replaced.
Lack of flexibility Vendors are generally reluctant to enhance their
applications or change their processes.
Service Level Agreement
Management
A relationship management function will need to be
created to closely monitor established SLA
performance.
System Upgrades/ Releases Vendors periodically enhance their software. When
this occurs, customers typically are required to
upgrade even if there are no direct benefits gained.
This creates additional work in many areas including
for development staff who may need to adjust file
formats and integrations, acceptance testing, and
training.
Advantages of In- house development:
Table 17: Advantages of In- House Development
Flexibility AzDOT may determine an enhancement may
improve a workflow; much easier to assign internal
resources than to work with a vendor’s change cycle
No Long- Term Dependence on a
Third Party
AzDOT has control of its digital signature
environment and PKI infrastructure. This includes
the possibility that a vendor may de- emphasize PKI,
discontinue support of its PKI Software, exit the
business, or be acquired by another firm, etc.
42
Disadvantages of In- house development:
Table 18: Disadvantages of In- House Development
Outside of core expertise Developing an internal solution may be well outside
the development work typically completed by
AzDOT IT staff. Having resources focus on non- core
capabilities is typically an inefficient development
model.( 1)
Unknown effort As a new technology to AzDOT, there is little staff
experience to properly assess the complexity of the
project, develop accurate plans and estimates, and
appropriately manage customer expectations. ( 1)
Learning Curve A lengthy learning curve will be experienced during
development. The new technology will be highly
integrated across the AzDOT infrastructure. Over
time, this increases the cost of training new staff and
makes turnover of key resources that much more
impactful. Having a core development team of 3- 4
FTEs means that knowledge will be resident in a
limited number of resources. ( 1)
Opportunity Cost Because of the lengthy development cycle of six
months, the resources devoted to digital
signature/ PKI rollout could be working on other
initiatives, creating a cost when measured against the
time of outsourcing. ( 1)
Changing management priorities As with any long duration project, priorities change
over time that could have a significant impact on
successfully implementing an in- house development
project.
( 1) Silanis, Build Vs. Buy, Case Study
43
Conclusion
Our conclusion, based on the available sources, is that a well documented, third- party
electronic approval workflow application ( e. g., Adobe’s LiveCycle) or a similar
electronic approval workflow engine, provides the necessary structure to make virtually
all internal processes and transactions compliant with Federal and Arizona electronic and
digital signature guidelines. It is important to note that a robust electronic approval
process does not necessarily require the use of formal digital signature technology ( e. g.,
Public/ Private key digital certificates). As a reminder, formal digital signature
technology is defined as using public- key cryptography, certificate authorities, and other
enabling services.
Our conclusion applies to the internal processes/ transactions identified throughout this
feasibility study including; timesheets, system access requests, travel request and other
employee forms. These are commonly referred to as eForms within the department.
AzDOT has already rolled out many internal eForms using the Adobe LiveCycle
electronic approval workflow application. Others, like timesheets and system access
requests are scheduled to be converted into eForms this year. Even more sophisticated
transactions, like those used by Engineering ( bidding, plan drawing processes) may not
require the full use of PKI technology in order to meet Federal and Arizona guidelines.
The full use of digital signature technology must be based on an assessment of risk.
AzDOT has not previously been presented with a particularly challenging digital
signature project. Most forms are fairly basic, ( time sheets, access requests, etc).
Engineering has provided the first of many more complex challenges yet to come. If they
haven’t, AzDOT Leadership needs to complete a formal review and risk assessment of
signatures on the various engineering documents. A solution being studied by a current
Engineering project team would not use full PKI capabilities. In our opinion, the solution
would meet the Secretary of State guidelines of a medium risk transaction.
If AzDOT leadership finds transactions like those used by Engineering or other business
applications where the risks or desired levels of trust warrant additional security
measures, a full PKI implementation would be a more desirable solution. Leveraging an
external third party application is clearly our recommended implementation method. The
Adobe LiveCycle product that AzDOT is using has additional modules that can be
licensed to provide full PKI capabilities.
44
Appendix 1: State DOT Personnel that Responded to the Survey
Name: State: Email Phone Number:
Gary Blanton GA gblanton@ dot. ga. gov 404- 656- 6034
Mark R. Evans TX mevans2@ dot. state. tx. us 512- 465- 7453
Jon Clark KY jon. clark@ ky. gov 502- 564- 8900
Robert Ashmore NM robert. ashmore@ state. nm. us 505- 897- 7886
Nelson Hill, FL nelson. hill@ dot. state. fl. us 850- 414- 4499
Rhonda Ringer DE rhonda. ringer@ state. de. us 302- 760- 2607
Tom Westfall WA WestfaT@ wsdot. wa. gov 360- 705- 7638
Tom Hurd VT tom. hurd@ state. vt. us 802- 828- 3426
Jay Lytle IN jlytle@ indot. in. gov 317- 234- 5268
Leon Jackson DC leon. jackson@ dc. gov 202- 741- 5384
Doug Couto MI coutod@ michigan. gov 517- 241- 2899
Mark D. Kinkade IL Mark. Kinkade@ Illinois. gov 217- 785- 2400
Andy Crenshaw AL crenshawa@ dot. state. al. us 334- 242- 6264
Dane Prescott NH Dane. Prescott@ oit. nh. gov 603- 271- 3281
Mike Bousliman MT mbousliman@ mt. gov 406- 444- 6159
Mark Herring TN mark. herring@ state. tn. us 615- 254- 6409
Allan Haverkamp KS allanh@ ksdot. org 785- 296- 4656
Thomas Kennedy NJ thomas. kennedy@ dot. state. nj. us 609- 530- 6252
Renee Ye UT rye@ utah. gov 801- 964- 4598
Augustus Wagner MN gus. wagner@ dot. state. mn. us 651- 366- 4237
David Allaby WI david. allaby@ wisconsin. gov 608- 26709786
Murali Rao VA Murali. Rao@ vdot. virginia. gov 804- 786- 9702
Suzanne Gehring OR Suzanne. D. Gehring@ odot. state. or. us 503- 986- 6385
Steven Hulsey NC shulsey@ dot. state. nc. us 919- 707- 2201
James E. Yarsky MD jyarsky@ sha. state. md. us 410- 545- 8680
Bill Wehling NE bill. wehling@ nebraska. gov 402- 479- 3986
Dominic Cali LA domcali@ dotd. la. gov 225- 242.4699
Russ Buchholz ND rjbuchholz@ nd. gov 701- 328- 2561
Nancy Armentrout ME nancy. armentrout@ maine. gov 207- 624- 3209
CISO CA CISO@ dot. ca. gov 916- 653- 0972
Ken Slay MS kslay@ mdot. state. ms. us 601- 359- 9829
Bryan Stewart AR bryan. stewart@ arkansashighways. com501- 569- 2436
Todd Walters MO todd. walters@ modot. mo. gov 573- 526- 3164
45
Appendix 2: Survey Questions
The following survey was used to obtain input from the other states’ DOT.
QUESTION
ANSWER
1 Has your organization implemented any
form of Digital Signature Technology?
Yes / No
If answer is yes, the survey will
automatically skip to question 4
If answer is no, the survey will move to the
following questions
2 Please briefly explain why you have not
implemented Digital Signature Technology.
FREE FORM TEXT BOX
3 When do you believe your organization will
implement some form of Digital Signature
Technology?
a. Less than a year
b. Within the next year
c. Within the next 2- 3 years
d. Not in the foreseeable future
For the “ No digital signature path” - The
survey will ask for the name/ phone
number of someone we can contact later.
The survey will thank them for their time.
Digital Signature “ YES” path
4 Please select how you are using Digital
Signature Technology ( select all that apply)
Select all that apply:
a. Customer- based ( license
renewals, vehicle registration,
etc.)
b. Procurement
c. Engineering
d. Internal processes ( timesheets,
system access requests, etc.)
e. Other: OPEN A Free Form Text
Box
5 Please select the method used to implement
your Digital Signature Technology
a. Internal customized solution
b. Purchased 3rd party software /
internally hosted ( runs on your
organization’s infrastructure)
c. Externally hosted by a third party
provider ( does not run on your
organization’s infrastructure)
46
QUESTION
ANSWER
5a What third party provider are you using? --
This opens only if they select b or c on
question 5
FREE FORM TEXT BOX
Vendor contact information
5b Would you recommend this vendor? YES / NO
6 How would you describe the benefits /
savings your project has achieved
a. Benefits have exceeded our
expectations
b. Benefits have met our
expectations
c. Benefits will meet expectations,
but haven’t yet
d. Benefits will not met
expectations
e. Too early to tell / No post-implementation
analysis has been
completed.
7 What benefits have you realized? FREE FORM TEXT BOX
8 What major challenges did you encounter? FREE FORM TEXT BOX
9 We would like to include the information
that you provided in our study. We might
also contact you for clarifications. Please
provide us with some information about
yourself.
TEXT BOX FOR NAME, EMAIL,
PHONE